■nl 


aHr  \BT  v 

\ 

Ml  tSit  3j 

Zj  !i  •  • 

m-  v]f  r 

I 

ffi  Jte 

JAN  17  1924 

v  ///  4  J 

^eiCAL  '010' 

BL  263  . F3  1923 
Fairhurst,  Alfred,  1843- 
1921. 

Atheism  in  our  universities 
Division 


Section 


\ 


/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/atheisrninouruniv00fair_0 


Atheism 
In  Our  Universities 


BY 

ALFRED  FAIRHURST,  A.M.,  D.Sd. 

Author  of 

“Organic  Evolution  Considered/* 
“Theistic  Evolution/*  Etc. 


CINCINNATI,  OHIO 

THE  STANDARD  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


Copyright,  1923, 

The  Standard  Publishing  Company 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Introduction .  7 

Preface  .  9 

I. 

Law . 15 

II. 

Evolution  a  Fashion  . 23 

III. 

Design  in  Nature  .  35 

IV. 

Spontaneous  Generation  . 42 

y. 

Failures  of  Evolution  .  51 

VI. 

Answers  to  Questionnaire 

By  Chancellor  David  Starr  Jordan  and  Dr. 

Ray  Leman  Wilbur,  of  Leland  Stan¬ 
ford  University .  72 


3 


Contents 


VII. 

Answers  to  Questionnaire 

By  Charles  W.  Eliot,  President  Emeritus 
of  Harvard  University,  and  by  Arthur 
T.  Hadley,  Ex-President  of  Yale  .  104 

VIII. 

Answers  to  Questionnaire 

By  Dr.  John  J.  Coss,  for  President  Butler, 
of  Columbia  University ;  Prof.  R.  M. 
Wenley,  for  President  Hutchins,  of 
Michigan  University;  Professor  Nach- 
tricht,  for  Pres.  Marion  L.  Burton,  of 
University  of  Minnesota ;  Pres.  Frank 
J.  Goodnow,  of  Johns  Hopkins  Uni¬ 
versity;  Pres.  William  S.  Currell,  by 
Prof.  A.  C.  Moore,  University  of  South 
Carolina  .  129 


IX. 

Answers  to  Questionnaire 

By  President  Campbell  by  Prof.  John  F. 
Bovard,  of  University  of  Oregon ;  Pres. 
Robert  F.  Vinson  by  Prof.  D.  B.  Cas¬ 
teel,  University  of  Texas ;  Pres.  J.  Ross 
Stevenson  by  W.  Brent  Greene,  Jr., 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary;  Pres. 

4 


Contents 


John  Grier  Hibben  by  Prof.  E.  G. 
Conklin,  Princeton  University ;  Pres. 
Lemuel  H.  Murlin,  of  Boston  Univer¬ 
sity  . . . .  146 


X. 

Letters  and  Answers  to  Questions 

Dean  Franklin  N.  Parker,  Candler  School 
of  Theology,  Emory  University;  Pres. 

C.  A.  Barbour,  Rochester  Theological 
Seminary ;  Pres.  Henry  C.  King, 
Oberlin  College ;  Pres.  W.  0.  Thompson, 

Ohio  State  University  .  175 

XI. 

Other  Letters  and  Answers 

From  State  Superintendents  of  Public 
Instruction  and  Others. 

Albert  Olney,  Commissioner  of  Secondary 
Schools,  California;  Thomas  Johnson, 
Superintendent  of  Schools,  Michigan ; 

F.  G.  Blair,  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction,  Illinois;  L.  N.  Hines,  State 
Superintendent  of  Indiana ;  Charles 
F.  Wheelock,  Assistant  Commissioner 
Secondary  Education,  New  York; 
Robert  I.  Bramball,  Division  of  Ele- 

5 


Contents 


mentary  Education,  Massachusetts ; 
Pres.  Walter  P.  Morgan,  Western 
Illinois  State  Normal  School ;  Pres.  J. 

H.  Coates,  Eastern  Kentucky  Normal 
School  . .  185 

XII. 

Some  Conclusions .  196 


6 


INTRODUCTION 


MY  object  in  writing  this  volume  is  to 
counteract,  to  some  extent,  the  influence 
of  the  agnostic  and  atheistic  philosophy  of  evo¬ 
lution,  and  that  view  of  theistic  evolution  which 
holds  that  this  is  God’s  only  method  of  work¬ 
ing.  To  this  end  I  ask  that  this  volume  be 
given  a  place  in  the  libraries  of  our  universi¬ 
ties,  colleges,  normal  schools  and  high  schools, 
and,  whenever  the  subject  of  evolution  is  taught, 
in  as  prominent  a  place  as  is  given  to  the 
leading  authors  who  favor  this  theory. 

In  most  cases  the  books  selected  on  this 
subject  have  been  in  favor  of  the  theory  of 
evolution,  and  chosen  with  the  view  of  propa¬ 
gating  this  theory,  while  the  books  opposed  to 
it  have  been  largely  ignored.  This  method 
shows  a  lack  of  intellectual  fairness.  The 
mechanical  display  made  by  a  library  on  evolu¬ 
tion  is  intended  to  impress  the  beholder  with 
a  sense  of  the  futility  of  offering  any  opposi¬ 
tion.  The  average  mind  casts  its  vote  with  the 
majority. 

This  philosophy  of  creation  is  now  posing 
before  the  public  under  the  name  of  the  “scien¬ 
tific  method,”  and  it  is  commonly  classed  as 
a  branch  of  “science.”  Alfred  Fairhurst. 
Lexington,  Ky.,  May  6,  1921. 

7 


PREFACE 


IT  has  been  a  great  happiness  to  me  to  have 
had  even  a  small  part  in  the  great  work 
to  which  my  beloved  father,  Alfred  Fairhurst, 
devoted  so  many  years  of  his  life.  I  wish  that 
I  were  able  to  adequately  portray  the  strength 
and  beauty  of  my  father’s  character,  which 
seemed  to  me  like  a  calm,  broad  stream,  flow¬ 
ing  through  a  turbulent  world,  sure  in  its 
power  and  majesty,  and  enriching  the  lives 
of  all  it  touched. 

Almost  as  early  as  I  can  remember,  my 
father  studied  and  wrote  upon  the  subject 
of  “evolution.”  His  last  years  were  con¬ 
centrated  upon  an  effort  to  combat  the  per¬ 
nicious  effect  of  the  popular  construction 
put  upon  the  so-called  Darwinian  theory  of 
evolution.  I  use  the  word  “so-called”  ad¬ 
visedly,  for  Charles  Darwin  never  dreamed 
to  what  limits  future  generations  would  carry 
his  entertaining  hypothesis. 

There  are  a  number  of  good  people  in  the 
world  who  sincerely  think  they  believe  in  the 
Darwinian  theory  of  evolution.  In  their 

human  desire  to  follow  the  “lead  of  fashion,” 

9 


Preface 


they  do  not  realize  that  they  are  following  a 
cult  founded  upon  matter  and  force  only,  the 
foundation  stone  of  which  is  an  impossibility, 
for  scientists  agree  upon  the  one  fact  that 
“life  comes  only  from  life,”  and,  to  follow 
evolution  to  its  logical  beginning,  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  cast  aside  this  axiom.  It  is  to  these 
good,  but  misinformed,  people  that  my  father 
addressed  his  efforts. 

There  is  no  conflict  between  geology  and 
Genesis.  They  are  only  written  from  different 
viewpoints;  the  one  with  the  idea  of  teaching 
the  process  of  the  physical  formation  of  the 
world,  the  other  with  the  object  to  show  that 
the  earth  and  all  that  dwell  therein  are  the 
handiwork  of  God.  The  word  “day”  is  used 
to  express  a  period  of  time,  as  when  we  say 
“in  that  day,”  meaning  “in  that  period  of 
the  world’s  history.” 

Although  in  many  States  of  the  Union  the 
Bible  is  not  permitted  to  be  read  in  the  pub¬ 
lic  schools,  in  these  same  schools  and  in  our 
universities  the  people’s  money  is  being  spent 
in  employing  teachers  who,  knowing  really 
but  very  little  about  the  subject  of  evo¬ 
lution,  dogmatically  teach  it  as  a  “science” 
instead  of  as  a  “theory,”  and  thus,  little 
by  little,  slowly  but  surely,  are  sowing 
the  seed  of  destructive  criticism  of  the 
Bible. 


10 


Preface 


It  is  my  belief  that  the  tide  is  now  begin¬ 
ning  to  turn,  and  that  a  small  army  of  lead¬ 
ers  is  forming  who  will  carry  on  the  good 
work  in  which  Alfred  Fairhurst  was  the 
pioneer  who  blazed  the  way. 

It  seems  appropriate  to  give  here  a  brief 
sketch  of  my  father’s  life.  He  was  born  in 
Bruceville,  Ind.,  on  April  28,  1843,  the  son  of 
Dr.  William  Fairhurst.  His  mother,  before 
her  marriage,  was  Margaret  Bartley.  He  was 
one  of  a  large  family  of  brothers.  He  received 
his  education  at  Butler  College  and  at  Har¬ 
vard  University.  He  taught  for  several  years 
at  Butler  and  at  Akron,  0.  Later  he  entered 
the  practice  of  law,  and  went  into  partner¬ 
ship  with  my  mother’s  brother,  John  A.  Hol¬ 
man.  The  latter  was  afterward  elected  judge, 
thus  dissolving  the  partnership. 

In  1879  he  married  Elizabeth  Holman, 
daughter  of  George  Holman,  then  a  leading 
dry-goods  merchant  of  Indianapolis.  Finding 
his  law  practice  to  be  extensive,  but  unremunera- 
tive,  and  having  a  growing  family  to  be  pro¬ 
vided  for,  he  accepted  the  call  to  occupy  the 
Chair  of  Science  in  Kentucky  University  at 
Lexington. 

He  went  to  Lexington  in  1881,  and  con¬ 
tinued  to  fill  the  position  of  professor  of 
science  there  for  over  thirty  years.  Largely 
as  a  result  of  his  efforts,  Andrew  Carnegie 

11 


Preface 


was  prevailed  upon  to  make  a  gift  to  the 
university  of  the  handsome  Hall  of  Science, 
which  now  adorns  the  campus. 

After  he  retired  from  active  teaching,  he 
served  as  pastor  in  several  of  the  Kentucky 
churches,  and  spent  much  time  in  writing  and 
studying.  In  1897  he  had  published  his  first 
book  on  the  subject  of  evolution — “Organic 
Evolution  Considered”  (Standard  Publishing 
Co.,  Cincinnati,  0.).  In  this  first  volume, 
written  largely  for  scientists  and  students  of 
evolution,  he  endeavored  to  give  a  general 
statement  of  the  claims  of  evolution  as  applied 
to  the  origin  of  organic  forms,  and  then 
offered  objections  which  went  far  toward 
invalidating  those  claims. 

His  second  book  on  the  subject,  “Theistic 
Evolution”  (Standard  Publishing  Co.,  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  0.),  was  published  in  1919.  This  book 
is  a  most  concise  and  readable  treatise  on  the 
subject,  and  delightfully  entertaining  to  the 
average  reader.  In  it  he  emphasized  certain 
things  to  which  he  thought  ministers  and 
teachers  especially  ought  to  give  the  most 
thoughtful  consideration.  He  held  that  the¬ 
istic  evolution  destroys  the  Bible  as  the  in¬ 
spired  word  of  authority  in  religion  as  effectual¬ 
ly  as  does  atheistic  evolution.  In  it  he  warns 
against  teaching  that  evolution  is  a  fact,  or  a 
science ,  when  it  is  only  a  theory ,  impossible  of 

12 


Preface 


verification.  Even  then,  the  objections  to  it, 
he  urges,  should  be  presented  so  that  the  pupil 
may  have  both  sides  to  the  question.  He  ex¬ 
presses  the  belief  that  the  teaching  of  evolution 
should  be  eliminated  from  the  primary  and 
secondary  schools,  by  law,  if  necessary,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  the  immaturity  of  the  pupils  and  the 
incompetence  generally  of  the  teachers  of  such 
schools  to  properly  present,  explain  or  teach 
the  subject. 

The  present  volume,  “  Atheism  in  Our  Uni¬ 
versities,’ ’  represents  a  study  of  this  angle  to  the 
subject,  and  presents  material  collected  over  a 
period  of  several  years.  One  of  the  pleasantest 
memories  of  my  whole  life,  and  one  which  will 
linger  always,  is  that  of  the  six  weeks’  visit 
which  my  father  paid  to  my  home  in  Arizona 
just  prior  to  his  death.  However,  instead  of 
resting  and  relaxing  during  this  visit,  he  was 
continually  at  work  upon  the  manuscript  of 
this  book.  When  urged  to  rest,  he  would  reply, 
4 ‘No,  I  must  finish  it.”  He  was  in  the  best  of 
health,  yet  it  seemed  as  if  he  knew  that  his 
time  on  earth  was  short. 

For  many  years  before  his  death  he  lectured 
in  different  cities,  churches  and  colleges,  on  the 
subject  of  “Science  and  Religion,”  covering 
the  entire  range  of  all  three  of  his  books  on  the 
subject  of  evolution. 


13 


Preface 


My  father  returned  to  Lexington  from  his 
visit  at  my  home,  in  April,  1921.  On  the  13th 
of  May,  following,  he  suffered  a  partial  stroke 
of  paralysis,  and  the  end  came  peacefully, 
eleven  days  later.  Just  three  of  us  are  left 
behind — mother,  sister  Helen,  and  myself. 

The  manuscript  here  presented  in  book 
form  was  published  in  the  winter  of  1922  in 
the  Christian  Standard,  in  the  exact  form  in 
which  my  father  left  the  material.  He  had 
given  it  a  general  arrangement,  but  had  not 
had  time  or  opportunity  to  polish  it  or  correct 
small  errors  before  his  death.  These  he  would 
have  done  before  he  sent  it  to  the  printer, 
had  he  lived.  It  has  been  my  great  pleasure 
to  make  these  minor  corrections  in  the  form, 
so  far  as  I  could,  but  I  have  not  in  the  least 
changed  the  subject-matter.  I  wish  that  I 
could  have  been  of  more  assistance  in  this 
great  work,  and  especially  do  I  wish  that  I 
could  inspire,  to  greater  efforts,  those  leaders 
of  to-day  who,  happily,  are  taking  up  and 
carrying  on  the  good  fight  in  which  my  father 
pioneered  the  way — all  to  the  end  that  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  Holy  Bible  as  an  authority  in  re¬ 
ligion  may  never  be  destroyed,  and  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  may  be  saved  to  the  world  in  all  its 
sacred  purity. 

Mary  Fairhurst  Baughn. 

Phcenix,  Ariz.,  June  28,  1923. 

14 


ATHEISM  IN  OUR  UNIVER¬ 
SITIES 


i. 

LAW. 

Some  Introductory  Considerations. 

IF  we  include  all  things  under  the  head  of 
matter  and  force,  then  we  may  define  law 
as  being  the  manner  in  which  force  acts.  The 
study  of  things  that  happen  mechanically  is 
a  study  of  the  action  of  forces. 

The  reign  of  law  is  not  universal  in  the 
sense  that  a  given  quantity  of  a  force — heat, 
for  example — necessarily  produces  one  invari¬ 
able  result.  When  mind  enters  the  field,  the 
process  of  producing  mechanical  results  that 
were  inevitable  gives  way  to  results  obtained 
by  intelligence,  and  brought  to  pass  by  free 
will. 

It  is  evident  that,  under  like  conditions,  a 
given  force  will  act  in  like  ways.  In  this  sense 
law  reigns.  But  conditions  are  not  fixed  and 

invariable  under  the  control  of  mind.  They 

15 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


are  changed  by  free  mind,  and  one  force  is 
often  converted  into  another  in  order  to  serve 
new  purposes. 

The  human  mind  is  not  under  the  absolute 
dominion  of  the  forces  that  prevail  in  the 
world.  Any  one  of  these  forces  in  the  inor¬ 
ganic  world  can  be  converted  by  the  agency 
of  mind  into  all  the  others  in  succession. 
When  so  changed  they  are  known  by  differ¬ 
ent  names,  and  are  directed  into  new  channels 
to  do  endless  kinds  of  work.  Mind,  in  control¬ 
ling  forces,  must  take  notice  of  the  ways  in 
which  each  force  acts.  These  methods  of  action 
of  forces,  laws,  do  not  dominate  mind,  but 
mind  directs  the  forces  for  special  purposes. 

There  are  no  “laws  of  nature”  which  pre¬ 
determine  what  work  a  given  amount  of  the 
force  of  gravity  shall  do.  A  thousand  tons 
of  water  falling  over  Niagara  may  simply 
warm  the  water  which  it  strikes,  or  it  may 
turn  a  dynamo  that  converts  the  force  suc¬ 
cessively  into  mechanical  motion,  electricity, 
light,  heat,  chemical  action,  magnetism,  the 
lifting  of  weights  or  the  motion  of  many  ma¬ 
chines,  for  endless  purposes.  There  is  noth¬ 
ing  in  the  mechanical  processes  of  nature  to 
determine  what  free  mind  shall  do.  Mind  is 
an  intelligent  determining  cause  that  controls 
forces  so  that  they  produce  countless  results 
that  could  never  otherwise  happen. 

16 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


It  has  not  been  determined  that  the  forces 
in  the  inorganic  world  can  be  converted  into 
mind,  but  it  is  certain  that  mind  can  control 
these  forces.  They  are  the  tools  with  which 
the  mind  of  man  has  revolutionized  the  world. 
The  great  fact  of  the  correlation  of  energy, 
and  man’s  ability  at  will  to  bring  it  about  and 
to  control  energy  in  all  its  phases,  is  of  vast 
importance. 

The  “ reign  of  law”  does  not  mean  the 
subjugation  of  mind.  The  human  will  is  not 
a  slave  in  chains  at  the  chariot-wheels  of 
“law,”  but  it  is  the  charioteer  with  “four  in 
hand,”  directing  the  forces  of  nature  to  work 
in  countless  ways. 

The  practical  results  show  that  the  will 
has  been  free  to  choose,  and  conscience  is  a 
living  witness  of  this  truth.  The  control  of 
results  in  dealing  with  forces  of  all  kinds,  in 
all  sciences  and  in  all  realms  of  nature,  pro¬ 
claims  the  supremacy  of  mind. 

Mechanical  force  can  only  move  matter. 
All  work  is  done  by  force  overcoming  re¬ 
sistance.  Kinetic  energy  is  force  at  work. 
Latent  energy  is  force  stored  up,  as  a  weight 
at  rest.  Motions  produced  in  masses  of  mat¬ 
ter  are  resultants  of  the  action  of  more  than 
one  force.  Gravity  is  always  present,  produc¬ 
ing  a  perceptible  effect.  Cohesion  and  ad¬ 
hesion  oppose  the  modification  of  masses  of 
2  17 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


matter.  Frequently  a  single  force  so  pre¬ 
dominates  that  we  attribute  the  entire  effect 
to  that  one  force. 

The  chemical  force  will  cause  almost  every 
element  to  unite  with  oxygen.  But  most  of 
the  oxides  of  the  metals  can  be  decomposed 
with  hot  carbon.  When  they  are  heated  with 
carbon,  the  carbon  unites  with  the  oxygen 
of  the  metal,  leaving  the  latter  in  the  free 
metallic  condition.  In  such  cases,  we  say 
that  the  affinity  of  the  carbon  for  the  oxygen 
is  stronger  than  the  affinity  of  oxygen  for  the 
metal.  And  so  we  can  overcome  a  countless 
number  of  chemical  affinities  by  means  of 
others.  A  simple  equation  will  show  the  com¬ 
mon  method  in  chemistry  of  obtaining  results 
by  overcoming  one  force  by  means  of  another, 
AgN03+NaCl=AgCl+NaN03.  This  equa¬ 
tion  represents  silver  nitrate  and  sodium 
chloride  as  reacting  on  each  other  in  such  a 
way  as  to  bring  about  the  decomposition  of 
each  and  the  formation  of  two  new  com¬ 
pounds.  It  is  evident  that  in  this  decomposi¬ 
tion  the  stronger  chemical  force  has  overcome 
the  weaker.  It  is  said  that  the  chlorine  has 
a  stronger  affinity  for  the  silver  than  it  has 
for  the  sodium,  and  that  consequently  an 
interchange  takes  place. 

Light,  in  photography,  decomposes  a  silver 
compound;  electricity  decomposes  a  large 

18 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


number  of  chemical  compounds,  and  heat  will 
decompose  many  inorganic,  and  the  majority 
of  organic,  compounds.  Chemical  results,  in 
most  cases,  are  brought  about  by  overcoming 
force  with  force. 

The  growth  of  the  plant  involves  the 
decomposition  of  mineral  compounds  that 
serve  as  plant  food.  The  growing  plant  ab¬ 
sorbs,  through  the  pores  of  the  leaves,  carbon 
dioxide,  C02,  and,  under  the  influence  of  sun¬ 
shine,  the  chloraphyl  in  the  leaves  decomposes 
the  C02,  giving  off  the  oxygen  and  retaining 
the  carbon  as  food.  The  roots  of  the  growing 
plant  absorb  potassium  nitrate,  and  other 
mineral  foods  in  solution  in  the  sap,  and  the 
life  forces  in  the  plant  enable  it  to  decompose 
these  mineral  foods  and  appropriate  the  useful 
substances,  and  elaborate  them  into  organic 
materials,  such  as  woody  fiber,  starch,  sugar, 
vegetable  oils,  and  protoplasm  in  various  forms. 

There  is  ceaseless  warfare  in  the  growing 
plant  between  the  anagenetic  (or  life)  forces 
and  the  catagenetic  (or  death)  forces.  They  are 
pitted  against  each  other,  and  the  fact  of  living 
and  growing  in  the  vegetable  world  is  due  to 
the  continual  triumph  of  life  over  death — of 
forces  in  the  living  world  that  can  overcome  the 
forces  in  the  mineral  world.  Science  knows 
no  method  by  which  the  forces  in  the  mineral 

world  can  be  converted  into  life  forces.  Herein 

19 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


lies  the  hopelessness  of  “spontaneous  genera¬ 
tion.  ” 

Animal  foods,  with  the  exception  of  salt  and 
water,  are  mostly  organic,  but  these  foods  must 
be  digested  and  assimilated  in  order  to  serve 
their  purposes  as  food.  During  this  process 
many  chemical  changes  take  place,  involving  a 
complex  warfare  that  is  not  well  understood. 
From  the  same  foods,  plants  manufacture  a 
countless  number  of  products,  and  from  like 
animal  foods  animals  organize  the  most  varied 
tissues  and  many  peculiar  chemical  compounds. 

On  every  hand,  in  order  to  obtain  desired 
results,  force  is  pitted  against  force,  and  the 
stronger  overcomes.  The  heat  of  the  sun  lifts 
the  water,  and  gravity  draws  it  back  to  the 
surface  of  the  earth.  Thus  gravitation  and 
sunshine  are  opposed  to  each  other  in  their 
effects.  Each  can  be  converted  into  the  other. 
They  are  but  two  phases  of  the  same  force. 

If  we  trace  the  order  of  creation  by  means 
of  forces,  we  have,  before  life  appeared,  the 
forces  in  the  dead  world. 

Next  come  the  life  forces  of  the  plant  world 
that  can  overcome  the  chemical  forces  of  the 
mineral  world.  We  know  of  no  way  to  con¬ 
vert  the  inorganic  forces  into  living  forces. 
Ascending  to  the  animal  kingdom,  we  find 
many  kinds  of  feelings  and  instincts  which  can 

not  be  accounted  for  by  means  of  any  forces 

20 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


in  minerals  and  plants.  Lastly,  we  ascend  to 
the  free  human  mind,  with  a  conscience  and 
self-consciousness,  and  many  other  powers  that 
can  not  be  explained  in  terms  of  anything  be¬ 
low.  Le  Conte  truthfully  says:  “From  the 
physical  point  of  view,  it  is  simply  impossible 
to  exaggerate  the  wideness  of  the  gap  that  sep¬ 
arates  men  from  even  the  highest  animal.” 

If  man  can  direct  the  forces  of  nature  to 
serve  his  purposes  by  producing  conflicts  of 
forces,  is  it  not  possible  that  God  might  per¬ 
form  miracles  without  violating  the  laws  of 
nature  ? 

Of  course,  I  recognize  the  existence  of  law, 
both  in  the  inorganic  and  organic  worlds. 
Astronomy  is  founded  largely  on  the  action 
of  gravitation  on  the  heavenly  bodies.  The 
time  of  an  eclipse  can  be  very  accurately  deter¬ 
mined,  because  gravitation  reigns. 

Atoms,  under  like  conditions,  always  unite 
to  form  compounds  of  invariable  composition, 
so  that  one  analysis  of  a  compound  determines 
its  fixed  composition.  Chemistry,  the  greatest 
of  all  sciences,  is  founded  on  the  laws  of  atoms. 

Physics  determines  and  makes  use  of  the 
laws  of  some  of  the  forces  of  nature,  such  as 
gravity,  light,  heat  and  electricity. 

In  the  above  instances  the  forces  work  ac¬ 
cording  to  regular  methods,  and  these  methods 
we  call  laws. 


21 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


We  know  that  certain  foods  and  forces 
determine  both  the  form  and  the  growth  in 
the  vegetable  world.  The  agricultural  chemist 
is  coming  more  and  more  into  his  own. 

We  understand  that  certain  conditions  are 
necessary  for  the  existence  and  well-being  of 
men  and  animals. 

Without  the  “laws  of  nature’ ’  man  could 
not  exist  here.  They  are  his  sole  means  by 
which  he  plans  for  the  future.  A  lawless  world 
would  be  a  godless  world.  Kegularity  in  the 
processes  of  nature  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  the  well-being  of  man. 

While  this  is  true,  it  is  also  true,  as  I  have 
stated,  that  a  man,  a  free  moral  agent,  as 
declared  by  his  conscience,  is  not  absolutely 
under  the  dominion  of  the  forces  of  nature, 
but  he  dominates  certain  quantities  of  these 
forces  to  accomplish  his  purposes. 

His  mind  is  not  under  the  dominion  of 
physical  force  or  law,  but  of  moral  law.  His 
moral  freedom  elevates  him  above  all  else  on 
earth. 


22 


\ 


II. 


EVOLUTION  A  FASHION. 

Further  Introductory  Considerations. 

HE  question  may  well  be  asked,  Why  has 


1  there  been  such  a  rush  by  leading  men  in 
educational  positions  to  adopt  the  word  “  evo¬ 
lution,’  *  when  it  is  evident  that  the  majority 
of  them  have  given  little  study  to  the  sub¬ 
ject?  The  general  remark  that  they  make, 
even  in  their  confessed  ignorance  of  the  sub¬ 
ject,  is  that  all  universities  and  colleges  teach 
it.  When  interpreted,  this  remark  means:  ‘‘We 
have  counted  noses,  we  have  taken  the  vote, 
and  the  result  is  all  biologists,  all  scholars, 
all  universities,  accept  it,  and  so  we  are  bound 
to  believe  it.”  Thus  we  extend  our  democracy 
into  the  scientific  world,  and  determine  truth 
by  a  popular  vote.  If  you  can  only  get  an 
idea  started  so  that  people  will  think  that  it 
is  generally  accepted,  then  the  crowd  will  fall 
into  line  and  yell.  The  educational  world  is 
now  in  that  condition  with  regard  to  the 
word  “evolution.”  Seemingly  it  prefers 
“error”  to  being  considered  “out-of-date.” 


23 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Whatever  virtue  there  may  be  in  the  word 
when  properly  used,  its  acceptance  in  the 
majority  of  cases  has  become  a  fad.  The  folly 
of  foot-binding  by  the  Chinese,  of  tight  cor¬ 
sets,  of  high  heels  and  pointed  toes,  of  many 
extreme  fashions  in  clothing  and  of  many 
other  objectionable  fashions — how  can  these 
be  met?  Regiments  of  soldiers,  cannon  and 
rapid-fire  guns  can  not  defeat  a  fashion,  how¬ 
ever  foolish  it  may  be.  A  fashion  is  due  to 
crooked  thinking  by  the  public  mind.  Many 
years  ago,  it  is  said,  there  was  a  tulip  craze 
in  Holland  that  wrecked  fortunes. 

Few  persons  will  dare  to  take  a  firm  stand 
against  a  fashion  in  dress.  This  season’s  style 
of  hat,  dress  or  coat  may  not  do  at  all  for  next 
season,  although  one’s  judgment  may  approve 
the  old  rather  than  the  new.  Origin,  propriety 
and  cost  do  not  figure  largely  with  most 
people.  Style,  the  latest  thing,  wins.  To  be 
fashionably  dressed  is  considered  by  many  a 
mark  of  good  breeding.  To  many  people  it  is 
very  uncomfortable  not  to  be  dressed  in 
fashion. 

A  fashion  represents  only  a  form  of  cur¬ 
rent  thought,  which,  like  an  earthquake,  has 
somewhere  a  center.  It  propagates  by  conta¬ 
gion.  It  is  mighty  and  must  be  noticed.  The 
unwary  are  captured  and  bound.  Reason, 

logic,  precedent,  poverty  and  cleverness  are 

24 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


not  proof  against  it.  All  must  submit,  if  they 
would  be  recognized. 

A  fashion  is  possible  only  because  people 
are  content  to  let  others  dictate  to  them.  The 
mass  of  the  public  walks  intellectually  in 
chains;  they  travel  the  lines  of  least  intellec¬ 
tual  resistance  marked  out  by  others. 

There  have  been  fashions  in  all  depart¬ 
ments  of  life — in  religious  thought,  in  politics, 
in  systems  of  philosophy,  in  eating  and  drink¬ 
ing,  in  sports  and  in  all  kinds  of  dress.  The 
prevalent  fad  now  among  the  college-bred 
and  among  those  who  have  some  claim  to 
education  is  evolution.  Any  up-to-date  col¬ 
lege  man  from  most  of  our  institutions  is 
proud  to  claim  that  he  is  “an  evolutionist.” 
In  fact,  he  is  afraid  not  to  do  so.  To  him  it 
represents  the  latest  culture — the  finishing 
touch,  without  which  a  gentleman’s  educa¬ 
tion  would  not  be  complete. 

Generally,  he  does  not  know  what  the  word 
means.  He  may  not  have  been  in  a  class 
where  evolution  was  taught,  but,  in  some  way, 
he  has  heard  that  it  is  the  accepted  “science,” 
and  so,  by  adoption,  he  makes  it  a  part  of  his 
education.  Perhaps  he  may  have  heard  that 
the  Eocene  horse  had  four  toes  in  front  and 
that  the  Archaeopteryx  had  a  lengthened  verte- 
brated  tail — conclusive  evidence  to  him  of 
the  ancestry  of  the  modern  horse  and  birds! 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


The  great  number  of  the  unsolvable  problems 
in  the  theory,  however,  have  never  been  pre¬ 
sented  to  him.  Still,  he  takes  great  comfort 
in  believing  the  theory,  for  he  feels  that  it 
places  him  in  good  company. 

I  have  even  heard  a  professor  say  that 
when  his  son  shall  go  to  a  leading  institution 
to  obtain  an  advanced  course,  he  would  feel 
ashamed  to  say  that  he  was  not  an  evolution¬ 
ist.  And  yet  the  evolution  taught  in  such  an 
institution  is,  in  all  probability,  atheistic  or 
agnostic,  if  reports  can  be  trusted.  I  have 
heard  this  same  professor  say  that  he  did 
not  study  science  more  than  a  year  in 
college,  that  he  is  not  a  zoologist,  but  that  he 
accepts  the  theory  of  evolution  because  it 
represents  the  consensus  of  scientific  opinion. 

Many  of  the  vital  facts  involved  in  this 
theory  are  not  difficult  to  understand.  I  take 
it  that  no  man  is  under  obligation  to  accept 
this  theory  without  inquiring  into  the  facts 
upon  which  it  is  based.  It  is  true  that  the 
universal  theory  in  all  of  its  details  is  of  vast 
proportions.  Few  have  the  time  and  knowl¬ 
edge  fully  to  understand  it.  The  differences 
of  opinion,  as  shown  by  answers  to  my  ques¬ 
tionnaire,  show  some  of  the  diversities  of 
opinion  on  the  subject.  It  seems  to  me  that, 
in  this  case,  a  suspended  judgment  would  be 

a  virtue.  If  I  were  called  upon  to  determine 

26 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


the  architecture  and  strength  of  materials  for 
a  great  suspension  bridge,  I  might  well  pause 
without  considering  that  I  had  disgraced  my 
judgment.  That  would  certainly  be  quite  as 
safe  as  to  join  in  a  fad,  even  if  I  acknowl¬ 
edged  my  ignorance. 

Many  of  those  who  have  answered  my 
questionnaire,  it  is  evident,  have  simply  echoed 
current  opinion.  Some  presidents  of  univer¬ 
sities  have  said,  “We  can  not  answer  your 
questions  because  we  have  not  the  scientific 
knowledge,’ ’  but  they  have  expressed  the 
opinion  that  evolution  is  taught  in  all  higher 
institutions  of  learning.  It  is  evident,  how¬ 
ever,  that  they  attach  different  meanings  to 
the  word  “evolution.”  Some  seem  to  think 
that  it  comprehends  all  the  changes  that  have 
taken  place  in  the  history  of  the  world.  All 
people  agree  as  to  continual  changes,  but 
change  alone  is  not  evolution.  The  majority, 
probably,  apply  the  word  to  organic  evolu¬ 
tion,  and  admit  miracles  as  a  part  of  the  proc¬ 
ess.  They  consider  it  to  be  partly  a  natural 
and  partly  a  supernatural  process.  Many 
Christians  accept  this  statement  as  to  method 
of  creation. 

But  evolution  in  its  widest  sense  is  entirely 
naturalistic.  Its  only  data  are  matter  and 
force,  or,  if  it  is  theistic,  it  confines  God  to 

natural  processes,  and  thus  eliminates  the 

27 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


supernatural.  According  to  this  theory,  all 
religion  is  naturalism,  and  the  Bible  is  only 
a  human  book,  to  be  judged  simply  as  litera¬ 
ture. 

A  recent  writer  aptly  says:  “Naturalism 
has  run  riot  for  twenty  years,  to  go  no  fur¬ 
ther  back,  and  we  are  still  smeared  with  it.” 
An  acute  critic  has  said  that,  if  it  was  the 
task  of  the  last  century  to  put  man  into  na¬ 
ture,  it  is  the  task  of  this  century  to  get  him 
out  again.  He  is  still  neck  deep  in  it,  having 
followed  nature  to  “the  last  ditch  and  ditch 
water.” 

The  existence  of  man’s  spiritual  nature  and 
the  need  of  spiritual  culture  in  our  educational 
system  have  been  largely  neglected  in  our 
chase  after  material  results.  The  minds  of 
many  are  still  wallowing  in  gross  materialism 
in  trying  to  prove  that  man  is  only  the  highest 
animal.  On  this  low  plane  man  can  never 
command  much  respect.  As  a  son  of  God 
with  an  immortal  soul,  his  entire  relation  to 
time  and  a  spiritual  world  is  changed. 

If  man  is  made  to  feel  that  he  is  born  to 
perish  like  the  brute,  his  soul  is  warped  and 
stunted.  It  is  only  in  the  light  of  a  limit¬ 
less  expanding  future  that  the  soul  is  at 
its  best. 

Our  modern  education  is  too  material— too 
much  grasping  after  material  results.  “Will 

28 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


it  enable  me  to  add  to  my  wealth  ?  ”  is  too  often 
the  question.  “Will  it  help  me  to  live  a 
model  life?”  ought  to  be  a  fundamental  ques¬ 
tion  in  education.  College  curricula  are  not 
shaped  in  the  interest  of  character,  but  most¬ 
ly  with  regard  to  getting  on  in  the  world.  It 
sometimes  happens  that  the  alumnus,  who 
ought  to  stand  for  what  is  best  for  society, 
is  only  an  educated  knave.  His  knowledge, 
unguided  by  character,  is  only  “German 
kultur.  ’  ’ 

I  take  it  for  granted  that  no  man  who 
does  not  stand  for  a  high  order  of  character 
ought  to  be  a  member  of  a  college  Faculty. 
If  a  man  is  an  atheist  or  an  agnostic,  he  ought 
not  to  be  allowed  to  impose  his  views  upon 
Christian  young  people.  Liberty  to  teach 
does  not  mean  liberty  to  destroy  Christian 
faith.  I  know  that  it  is  said  that  the  Chris- 
tian  young  man  when  he  enters  college  is  con¬ 
fronted  with  the  problem  of  adjusting  his 
faith  to  the  new  problems  of  science,  and 
that  it  becomes  necessary  for  him  to  adjust  his 
theology  to  science.  This  is  said  especially 
with  regard  to  evolution,  which  is  regarded 
as  “science.” 

Evolution,  as  I  have  claimed  in  another 
chapter,  is  but  a  philosophy  of  creation 
founded  from  beginning  to  end  upon  an  im¬ 
probable  series  of  assumptions.  Christianity 

29 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


is  under  no  obligation  to  do  obeisance  to  this 
materialistic  philosophy. 

But  the  student  must  take  notice,  we  are 
told,  of  the  contradiction  between  Genesis  and 
geology  as  to  creation.  Taking  the  days  in 
Genesis  to  be  indefinite  periods,  as  do  Sir 
William  Dawson  and  Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte, 
the  matter  of  conflict  disappears.  Both  of 
these  high  authorities  accept  the  account  in 
Genesis. 

The  presidents  of  universities  and  colleges 
generally  have  it  in  their  power  to  determine 
who  the  members  of  their  Faculties  shall  be. 
They  preside  over  the  future  intellectual  and 
moral  destiny  of  the  young  people  in  their 
charge.  It  is  their  duty  to  know  the  charac¬ 
ters  of  professors  and  the  quality  of  what 
they  teach.  They  are  to  see  that  “academic 
freedom”  is  not  made  an  excuse  for  teaching 
all  kinds  of  destructive  doctrines.  The  athe¬ 
ist,  the  agnostic  and  the  materialist  have  no 
rightful  claim  to  a  place  on  a  college  Faculty. 
The  public  does  not  support  State  universities 
for  the  propagation  of  atheism.  A  godless 
philosophy  aims  at  the  very  foundations  of 
Christian  civilization.  Those  in  authority  are 
ignorantly  bearing  with  godless  teaching  in 
many  of  the  highest  institutions.  Christian 
young  men  and  women  are  being  ignorantly 

subjected  to  the  assaults  of  a  godless  philoso- 

30 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


phy  under  the  name  of  “evolution.”  They 
have  neither  the  ability  nor  the  information 
to  resist  the  attacks. 

“Academic  freedom”  is  but  a  thin  cloak 
under  which  all  villainies  seek  to  hide.  A 
godless  philosophy  is  more  destructive  of 
human  welfare  than  Krupp  cannon  and  “U” 
boats.  A  godless  spiritual  dwarf,  whose  faith 
and  hope  and  high  aspirations  have  been  para¬ 
lyzed  by  a  destructive  philosophy  under  the 
name  of  the  “scientific  method,”  is  the  most 
worthless  member  of  society.  Without  an 
abiding,  inspiring  faith  his  life  is  zero. 

A  Christian  had  two  sons.  He  sent  the 
older  one,  a  very  bright  boy,  to  a  university. 
He  graduated  with  honor.  He  brought  home 
much  Latin  and  Greek  and  things  he  had 
learned,  but  he  left  his  Christian  faith  behind. 
The  teaching  he  got  did  the  work.  The  second 
son  was  kept  at  home.  He  was  a  great  worker 
in  the  church  and  a  man  of  undimmed  faith. 
Must  a  university ,  dependent  on  public  funds , 
be  so  organized  as  to  destroy  Christian  faith? 

A  father  wrote  to  me  in  great  agony,  saying 
that  he  had  sent  his  son  to  Illinois  State  Uni¬ 
versity;  that  when  he  sent  him  he  was  an  ex¬ 
cellent  Christian  worker  in  the  church,  but 
that  a  teacher  of  philosophy  in  that  university 
had  destroyed  his  son’s  faith.  Was  that  young 

man’s  education  an  improvement? 

31 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


I  was  recently  told  by  a  young  man  who 
had  attended  Missouri  State  University  the 
last  two  years  that  they  have  a  three  years’ 
course  in  biology,  and  that  60  per  cent,  of  the 
students  who  take  that  course  come  out  atheists. 
Are  we  to  conclude  from  this  that  60  per  cent, 
of  the  parents  of  these  young  people  want  that 
kind  of  teaching?  Are  atheists  in  professors’ 
chairs  to  carry  on  their  destructive  work,  un¬ 
opposed,  with  a  high  and  mighty  hand?  Is  the 
public  helpless  in  their  hands?  Is  there  no 
remedy  by  which  Christian  young  people  can 
be  saved  from  the  clutches  of  these  ghouls? 

About  a  year  ago  I  visited  a  classroom  in 
Ohio  State  University  at  Columbus  to  hear  a 
professor  of  zoology  lecture  to  a  mixed  class  of 
about  seventy-five  young  men  and  women  on 
evolution.  During  the  lecture  a  young  woman 
asked  the  professor  substantially  this  question: 
“Is  the  doctrine  of  evolution  consistent  with 
the  Christian  religion?”  I  was  told  by  one 
who  sat  near  the  professor  that  he  answered 
in  substance:  “It  makes  no  difference  to  me 
whether  there  is  a  God  or  not.”  His  answer 
was  understood  to  be  a  declaration  of  his  athe¬ 
ism.  I  was  told  by  a  young  woman  there,  who 
was  ready  to  enter  the  Senior  year,  that  three- 
fourths  of  the  professors  in  that  university 
were  atheists,  and  that  the  other  fourth  were 

agnostics  and  Christians.  It  was  also  told  by 

32 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


a  student  that  the  library  on  evolution  contains 
two  or  three  hundred  volumes  in  favor  of  the 
theory  and  only  two  or  three  against  it.  This 
shows  that  the  art  of  lying  has  there  been  re¬ 
duced  to  a  science.  It  can  easily  be  seen  that 
there  are  more  ways  of  lying  than  one.  The 
process  can  easily  be  shown  in  the  selection  of 
a  library.  The  men  who  teach  the  subject  and 
select  the  books  understand  the  advantage  of 
one-sidedness . 

Leland  Stanford  University  has  an  unen¬ 
viable  reputation  as  to  the  effect  of  its  teaching 
on  Christian  students.  I  have  given  a  quota¬ 
tion  on  this  in  connection  with  that  university. 

I  am  constrained  to  believe  that  many  of 
our  leading  universities  are  in  some  depart¬ 
ments  destroying  the  Christian  faith  of  young 
men  and  women.  I  have  spoken  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  in  various  places,  and  have  repeatedly  been 
told  that,  as  to  destructive  teaching  in  the  uni-  * 
versities,  my  statements  are  correct. 

I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  many  excellent 
things  that  are  taught  in  our  great  universities. 

It  is  true  that,  in  many  respects,  their  teaching 
excels,  but  it  is  also  true  that,  owing  to  the 
harmful  teaching  in  some  departments,  many 
Christian  men  will  not  send  their  sons  and 
daughters  to  them. 

The  following  is  from  the  Christian-Evan - 
gelist,  Dec.  23,  1920: 

3 


33 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


“The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  America  in  the  Fourth 
Quadrennial  Meeting. 

“A  Survey  of  the  Religious,  Moral  and 
Economic  Needs  of  the  World. 

“In  this  survey  we  have  the  following: 

“Polite,  Suave  and  Apologetic  Skepticism. 

‘ ‘  There  is  everywhere  in  this  country, 
especially  in  our  high  institutions  of  learning, 
a  skepticism — polite,  suave  and  apologetic — 
far  more  deadly  than  any  ever  known  here  be¬ 
fore,  in  the  opinion  of  Rev.  Charles  L.  Thomp¬ 
son,  president  of  the  Home  Missions  Council, 
who  discussed  a  nation-wide  program  for  Chris¬ 
tianizing  American  life,  at  the  evening  session 
in  Ford’s  Hall. 

“  ‘This  skepticism/  continued  Rev.  Mr. 
Thompson,  ‘is  all  the  more  insidious  for  the 
reason  that  it  can  be  recognized  only  as  the 
approach  of  an  iceberg  is  recognized  by  mari¬ 
ners,  through  the  icy  chill  which  permeates  the 
atmosphere  at  its  approach.  ...  We  must 
vitalize  our  Christianity  and  our  Christian 
forces.  The  time  has  come  when  America  will 
no  longer  stand  aside  and  see  the  world  drift 
toward  disorder  and  from  revelation.’  ” 


34 


III. 

DESIGN  IN  NATURE. 

I  DESIRE  to  point  out  certain  facts  that  in¬ 
dicate  an  intelligent  Creator  in  connection 
with  the  world’s  history.  The  existence  of 
an  intelligent,  directing  Creator  seems  to  me 
to  be  clearly  manifested  in  the  preparation  of 
the  world  for  living  things.  There  was  prob¬ 
ably  a  long  period,  before  life  appeared,  dur¬ 
ing  which  the  earth  was  losing  energy  in  the 
form  of  heat.  It  was  a  dying  world,  so  far 
as  energy  is  concerned.  Some  may  think  of 
the  changes  that  were  taking  place  as  evolu¬ 
tion,  but  it  was  not  evolution  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  word  is  applied  to  the  organic 
world.  The  two  processes  are  fundamentally 
different. 

I  assume  that  the  existence  and  well-being 
of  man  physically  and  mentally  was  a  design 
worthy  of  an  intelligent  Creator. 

There  are  fewer  than  one  hundred  known 
simple  substances  in  the  composition  of  the 
earth.  Four  of  these  elements — namely,  car¬ 
bon,  oxygen,  hydrogen  and  nitrogen — are 

35 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


necessary  for  all  plants  and  animals.  Sixteen 
elements  compose  the  human  body.  If  any 
one  of  the  four  elements  had  been  left  out, 
no  living  thing,  so  far  as  we  know,  could 
exist.  The  existence  of  the  human  being  re¬ 
quires  the  presence  of  most,  if  not  all,  of  the 
sixteen  elements.  Carbon  exists  in  the  earth 
in  small  per  cent.  It  is  deposited  in  carbon¬ 
ates,  in  coal,  carbonaceous  shale,  petroleum 
and  in  gas.  The  atmosphere  contains  one 
volume  of  carbon  dioxide  in  thirty-three 
hundred. 

Plants  are  dependent  for  their  supply  of 
carbon  on  the  small  fraction  of  one  per  cent, 
of  carbon  dioxide  in  the  air.  If  carbon  had 
been  absent  from  the  earth,  or  carbon  dioxide 
from  the  air,  plants,  consequently  animals, 
could  not  exist.  All  of  the  carbon  dioxide 
might  have  been  bound  up  in  carbonates  or 
other  forms  not  available  for  plant  growth. 
The  carbon  dioxide  of  the  air  is  being  con¬ 
stantly  renewed  by  the  combustion  of  fuel, 
by  the  decomposition  of  carbonates  by  means 
of  organic  acids,  and  by  the  decay  of  organic 
matter  and  exhalations  from  animals,  so  that 
the  supply  for  plant  growth  promises  to  be  of 
long  duration. 

Oxygen  constitutes  more  than  40  per  cent, 
of  the  earth’s  crust,  nine-tenths  of  the  weight 

of  water  and  about  23  per  cent,  of  the  weight 

36 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


of  the  atmosphere.  It  combines  with  most  of 
the  other  elements  directly.  If  there  had 
been  much  less  oxygen  than  there  is,  it  might 
all  have  combined  to  help  form  the  solid  crust 
of  the  earth,  leaving  none  for  water  and  air, 
in  which  case  life,  as  we  have  it,  could  not 
exist.  The  same  result  would  have  followed 
if  the  balance  after  forming  solids  had  all 
been  used  up  in  forming  water,  leaving  none 
free  for  the  air,  in  which  case  no  animal  life 
could  exist.  It  was  necessary  that  oxygen 
should  be  sufficiently  abundant  to  unite  with 
most  of  the  simple  substances  that  form  the 
earth’s  crust,  to  help  form  water  to  the  extent 
of  two  miles  in  depth  if  spread  over  the  whole 
earth  and  still  have  a  residue  free  for  the  air. 
It  must  be  present  and  in  certain  quantity  to 
serve  the  purpose. 

Nitrogen  is  a  third  element  that  is  a  neces¬ 
sary  part  of  every  living  thing.  Its  com¬ 
pounds  in  the  crust  of  the  earth  are  very 
limited  in  quantity.  It  comprises  about  77 
per  cent,  of  the  weight  of  the  air.  It  com¬ 
bines  directly  with  but  few  elements.  Its 
compounds  in  the  earth,  in  the  form  of 
nitrates,  ammonium  compounds  and  certain 
organic  substances,  are  very  soluble  in  water, 
and  are  being  washed  away  continually  by 
running  water.  The  atmosphere  is  the  in¬ 
exhaustible  source  of  nitrogen  for  plants. 

37 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Nitrogen  dilutes  the  oxygen  of  the  air  so 
that  it  is  less  rapid  in  its  oxidizing  effects, 
and  thus  reduces  danger  from  conflagrations. 
It  is  evident  that,  if  the  amount  of  nitrogen 
in  the  air  were  greatly  increased  so  as  to 
dilute  the  oxygen  much  more  than  it  is,  the 
efficiency  of  oxygen  in  creating  high  tempera¬ 
tures  for  the  reduction  of  metals  and  other 
purposes  would  be  greatly  decreased. 

Hydrogen,  the  lightest  known  substance, 
is  a  fourth  element  that  must  exist  for  every 
living  thing.  It  exists  mostly  combined  with 
oxygen  in  the  form  of  water.  If  it  existed  in 
quantity  large  enough  to  combine  with  all 
the  oxygen  to  form  water,  no  life  could  exist. 

What  are  the  'probabilities,  according  to 
any  chance,  that  these  four  elements,  each 
necessary  for  living  things,  would  occur  and 
in  the  proper  quantities  to  render  them  avail¬ 
able  for  life?  We  are  here  in  a  region  where 
evolution  is  absolutely  unavailable. 

When  we  ask  this  question  with  regard  to 
the  sixteen  elements  that  compose  the  human 
body,  how  infinitely  impossible  it  seems  that 
these  should  all  be  present  by  chance.  We 
know  that  most  of  these  substances  are  neces¬ 
sary.  Calcium  and  phosphorus  and  oxygen 
are  necessary  for  the  phosphate  of  the  bones; 
sodium  and  chlorine  in  the  form  of  common 

salt  are  necessary;  sulphur,  potassium,  mag- 

38 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


nesium,  iron  and  probably  other  elements  are 
also  necessary.  The  building  materials  for  the 
human  body  did  not  happen  here  by  chance. 
A  wise  Architect  planned  in  advance  the 
building  of  man’s  body. 

All  of  the  above  elements,  except  some  salt 
and  water,  come  ultimately  through  plants. 
The  design  shown  in  preparing  food  for  plants 
is  supplemented  and  strengthened  by  the  use 
of  plant  substances  as  food  for  men  and 
animals. 

The  plant  is  a  conservative  organism.  It 
stores  up  energy  in  the  form  of  organic  com¬ 
pounds,  which  animals  use  as  food.  The 
plant  is  a  deoxidizing  agent.  The  animal  is 
an  oxidizing  agent.  It  burns  up  materials 
which  plants  have  prepared.  The  plant  and 
the  animal  largely  supplement  each  other  in 
their  work. 

A  designing  Creator  was  looking  forward 
in  many  ways,  not  only  to  the  coming  of  man, 
but  to  the  coming  of  a  progressive  man  who 
could  fully  take  possession  of  and  have 
dominion  over  the  whole  earth,  and  utilize  the 
many  things  placed  here  for  his  benefit. 

The  many  kinds  of  food  widely  distributed 
over  the  earth,  adapted  to  man’s  use;  the  vari¬ 
ous  things  that  can  be  converted  into  clothing 
for  his  protection  and  comfort ;  the  great 

storehouses  of  coal,  carbonaceous  shale,  petro- 

39 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


leum,  gas  and  wood  for  fuel;  the  building 
materials  available  for  shelter;  the  numerous 
metals  and  metallic  ores  that  have  been 
brought  more  and  more  into  use  as  knowledge 
has  increased — these,  and  many  other  things, 
speak  of  a  far-reaching  intelligence  that  was 
contriving  for  the  physical  and  spiritual  well¬ 
being  of  man. 

“But,”  says  one,  “there  are  so  many  things 
in  which  I  can  see  no  design.”  The  absence  of 
our  ability  to  see  design  is,  I  take  it,  only  an 
indication  of  our  ignorance.  The  savage  fails 
to  discover  and  to  use  most  of  the  metals  and 
other  elements  and  their  compounds.  His 
ignorance  blinds  him  and  prevents  him  from 
understanding  the  uses  of  things.  Blessings 
come  as  a  reward  for  rightly  exercising  the 
powers  that  have  been  given  us.  Nature  re¬ 
veals  her  secrets  to  the  intelligent,  persistent 
inquirer. 

There  may  be  many  things  in  which  we 
can  see  no  design,  and  yet  if  there  are  some 
things  in  which  we  can  see  design,  this  fact 
unmistakably  proclaims  a  designer.  The 
Patent  Office  of  the  United  States  contains 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  models.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  us  to  understand  each  model 
before  we  can  logically  conclude  that  some 
have  been  designed.  When  we  look  at  a  great 
printing-press  we  are  constrained  to  ask : 

40 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Which  is  greater,  the  printing-press  or  the 
man  who  designed  it?  When  we  see  the  vast 
provision  in  this  world  for  the  well-being  of 
men  physically  and  spiritually,  we  ask : 
Which  is  greater,  the  things  designed  or  He 
who  designed  them? 

I  have  not  dwelt  upon  the  adaptations  of 
organisms  to  their  environment,  for  the  reason 
that  it  is  claimed  that  these  adaptations  have 
been  produced  by  evolution,  but  I  have  con¬ 
sidered  those  things  which,  for  the  most  part, 
are  beyond  the  process  of  evolution. 


41 


IV. 


SPONTANEOUS  GENERATION. 

THE  theory  of  universal  evolution  neces¬ 
sarily  includes  spontaneous  generation. 
This  fact  has  been  recognized  by  many  lead¬ 
ing  writers  on  evolution.  Prof.  H.  W.  Conn, 
of  the  Wesleyan  University,  in  the  “Method 
of  Evolution”  says:  “For  a  long  time,  the 
term  ‘evolution’  was  to  most  persons  synony¬ 
mous  with  the  idea  of  organic  evolution,  the 
broader  aspects  of  the  problem  being  over¬ 
looked.  The  term  ‘evolution’  is  certainly 
much  broader  than  the  simple  problem  of  the 
origin  of  plants  and  animals.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  so  evident  that  organic  evolution 
forms  the  keystone  of  the  evolutionary  arch, 
without  which  it  would  fall  to  pieces,  that  the 
whole  debate  for  years  centered  around  the 
problem  of  organic  evolution.” 

Le  Conte  says:  “Evolution  is  universal. 
The  process  pervades  the  whole  universe,  and 
the  doctrine  concerns  alike  every  department 
of  science — yea,  every  department  of  human 

thought.  Therefore,  its  truth  or  falseness, 

42 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


its  acceptance  or  rejection,  is  no  trifling  mat¬ 
ter,  affecting  only  one  small  corner  of  the 
thought  realm.  ...  It  determines  the  whole 
attitude  of  the  mind  towards  God.” 

As  a  universal  process  it  necessarily  in¬ 
cludes  the  origin  of  living  things. 

Professor  Conn  further  says:  “An  impor¬ 
tant  part  of  the  evolution  problem  is,  of 
course,  the  origin  of  life,  which  appears  to 
mean  the  origin  of  the  first  protoplasm.  Upon 
this  subject  it  must  be  confessed  we  are  in  as 
deep  ignorance  as  ever.  Indeed,  if  anything, 
the  disclosures  of  the  modern  microscope  have 
placed  the  solution  of  this  problem  even 
further  from  our  grasp.  So  long  as  we  could 
regard  protoplasm  as  a  chemical  compound, 
definite  though  complex,  so  long  was  it  possi¬ 
ble  to  believe  that  its  origin  in  the  past  geo¬ 
logical  ages  was  a  simple  matter  of  chemical 
affinity.  It  was  easy  to  assume  that  under  the 
conditions  of  earlier  ages,  when  chemical  ele¬ 
ments  were  necessarily  placed  in  different  re¬ 
lations  from  those  of  to-day,  chemical  opera¬ 
tions  could  arise  which  would  result  in  the 
formation  of  the  complex  body — protoplasm. 
This  has  been  the  supposition  that  has  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  various  suggestions  as 
to  the  origin  of  life.  But,  having  now  learned 
that  this  life  substance  is  not  a  chemical  com¬ 
pound,  but  a  mechanism,  and  that  its  prop- 

43 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


erties  are  dependent  upon  its  mechanism, 
such  a  conception  of  the  origin  of  life  is  no 
longer  tenable.  In  its  place  must  be  substi¬ 
tuted  some  forces  which  build  a  mechanism. 
But  even  our  most  extreme  evolutionists  have 
not  yet  suggested  any  method  of  bridging 
the  chasm,  and,  at  the  present  time,  we  must 
recognize  that  the  problem  of  the  origin  of 
life  is  in  greater  obscurity  than  ever.  The 
origin  of  chemical  compounds  we  may  ex¬ 
plain,  but  their  combinations  into  the  organic 
machine  which  we  call  protoplasm  is,  at  pres¬ 
ent,  unimaginable.” 

“So  far  as  we  know,  unorganized  proto¬ 
plasm  does  not  exist.  The  properties  of  life 
appear  to  be  manifested  by  nothing  simpler 
than  the  organic  cell.  Everything  that  grows 
and  reproduces  is  in  some  way  differentiated 
into  cells,  and  the  cell  seems  to  be  thus  the 
simplest  condition  of  matter  which  can  mani¬ 
fest  the  properties  of  life.  But  the  cell  is  any¬ 
thing  but  simple.  It  consists  of  many  parts 
acting  in  adjustment  to  each  other.  The  more 
it  is  studied  the  more  complex  it  appears.  .  .  . 
It  acts  rather  as  a  machine.  It  must  be  re¬ 
garded  as  a  mechanism,  and  can  not  be  called 
a  chemical  compound.  Its  properties  are  the 
properties  of  the  cell  as  a  mechanism  and  not 
of  the  cell  as  a  chemical  compound.  ...  If  we 

trace  variation  to  *  organic  composition/  it 

44 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


must  be  to  the  mechanical  rather  than  the 
chemical  composition  of  this  substance.  .  .  . 
With  all  our  research,  the  essence  and  origin 
of  life  has  thus  far  eluded  our  grasp.  The 
scientist  should  go  no  further  than  the  evi¬ 
dence  leads  him,  and  should  not  indulge  too 
much  in  philosophical  speculation.” 

This  advice  the  evolutionists  are  slow  to 
take. 

Darwin  said  that  “the  inquiry  as  to  how 
life  first  originated  is  hopeless.” 

Tyndall  concluded,  after  nearly  a  thousand 
experiments  with  organic  infusion,  that,  so  far 
as  his  experiments  showed,  living  things  come 
only  from  the  living. 

Romanes  said:  “The  theory  of  descent 
starts  from  life  as  a  datum  already  granted. 
.  .  .  Science  is  not  in  a  position  to  furnish  so 
much  as  any  suggestion  upon  the  subject;  and 
therefore  our  wisdom  as  men  of  science  is  to 
frankly  acknowledge  that  such  is  the  case.” 
(“Darwin  and  after  Darwin,”  p.  15.) 

Professor  Dana,  in  his  “Manual  of  Geol¬ 
ogy,”  says:  “Science  has  no  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  life.  The  living  organism,  instead 
of  being  a  product  of  physical  forces, 
controls  these  forces  for  its  higher  forms, 
functions  and  purposes.  Its  introduction 
was  the  grandest  event  in  the  world’s  early 
history.” 


45 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Professor  Tyndall  said:  “I  share  Virchow’s 
opinion  that  the  theory  of  evolution,  in  its 
complete  form,  involves  the  assumption  that 
at  some  period  or  other  of  the  earth’s  history 
there  occurred  what  would  now  be  called  spon¬ 
taneous  generation;  but  I  agree  with  him  that 
the  proofs  of  it  are  wanting.  I  hold  also  with 
Virchow  that  the  failures  have  been  so  lamenta¬ 
ble  that  the  doctrine  is  utterly  discredited.” 

Prof.  Lionel  S.  Beale  said:  “There  is  a 
gulf  between  life  and  non-life  that  is  unfathom¬ 
able,  and  I  can  not  believe  it  will  ever  be 
bridged.  ’  ’ 

In  1893  Lord  Kelvin  said,  in  an  address: 
“Forty  years  ago  I  asked  Liebig,  walking 
somewhere  in  the  country,  if  he  believed  that 
the  grass  and  flowers  which  we  saw  around  us 
grew  by  mere  chance  force.  He  answered : 
‘No;  no  more  than  I  believe  that  a  book  of 
botany  describing  them  could  grow  by  mere 
chemical  force.  ...  It  is  not  in  dead  matter 
that  men  live,  move  and  have  their  being,  but 
in  creative  and  directive  power  which  science 
compels  us  to  accept  as  an  article  of  faith.  Is 
there  anything  so  absurd  as  to  believe  that  a 
number  of  atoms,  by  falling  together  of  their 
own  accord,  could  make  a  crystal,  a  microbe, 
or  a  living  animal?’  ” 

“The  Origin  and  Evolution  of  Life,”  by 
H.  F.  Osborn,  contains  one  of  the  most  recent 

46 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


efforts  to  account  for  spontaneous  generation. 
The  author,  after  devoting  nearly  one-half  of 
a  large  volume  to  this  subject,  ends  with  this 
conclusion:  “The  more  modern  scientific  opin¬ 
ion  is  that  life  arose  from  a  recombination  of 
forces  pre-existing  in  the  cosmos.”  His  sup¬ 
posed  facts  in  favor  of  spontaneous  generation 
end  in  stating  an  opinion.  But  why  call  it  a 
“ scientific  opinion”?  That  “life  comes  only 
from  life”  is  an  accepted  fact  of  science.  In 
the  face  of  this  admitted  fact  why  should  a 
“scientific  opinion ”  that  living  things  come 
from  dead  matter  and  force  have  any  stand¬ 
ing?  It  is  because  spontaneous  generation 
must  be  accepted  by  the  evolutionist.  His  only 
factors,  as  he  claims,  before  life  appeared, 
were  matter  and  force.  These  furnish,  theo¬ 
retically,  a  scientific  basis  and  exclude  the 
supernatural.  To  admit  God  into  the  process, 
to  admit  a  miracle  or  any  other  supernatural 
event,  is  beyond  the  province  of  science.  The 
evolutionist,  in  his  vain  endeavor  to  exclude 
God,  must  hold  that  life  comes  from  non-life. 
There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion  which 
contradicts  the  known  facts. 

Jordan  and  Kellogg,  in  “Evolution  and 
Animal  Life,”  page  41,  say:  “Finally,  we  may 
refer  briefly  to  the  ‘grand  problem’  of  the 
origin  of  life  itself.  Any  treatment  of  this 

question  is  bound  to  be  wholly  theoretical. 

47 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


We  do  not  know  a  single  thing  about  it.  We 
have  some  negative  evidence.  That  is,  we 
have  no  recorded  instance — and  men  have 
searched  diligently  for  examples  of  spontaneous 
generation.  No  protoplasm  has  been  seen,  or 
otherwise  proved,  to  come  into  existence  except 
through  the  agency  of  already  existing  proto¬ 
plasm.  All  life  comes  from  life.  The  biologist 
can  not  admit  spontaneous  generation  in  the 
face  of  the  scientific  evidence  he  has.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  has  difficulty  in  understanding 
how  life  could  have  originated  in  any  other 
way  than  through  some  transformation  from 
inorganic  matter.’ ’ 

The  authors  have  just  stated  that  “all  life 
comes  from  life.”  This  being  true,  it  is  cer¬ 
tainly  not  easy  for  the  “biologist”  to  under¬ 
stand  how  life  can  come  from  death  by  spon¬ 
taneous  generation — by  the  action  of  force 
upon  dead  mineral  matter.  He  must  claim  it. 
He  must  deny  the  known  fact  in  favor  of  his 
theory.  Is  this  science? 

Prof.  E.  D.  Cope  says,  in  the  “Introduc¬ 
tion  to  Primary  Factors  of  Organic  Evolu¬ 
tion”:  “The  doctrine  of  evolution  may  be 
defined  as  the  teaching  which  holds  that  crea¬ 
tion  has  been  and  is  accomplished  by  the 
agency  of  the  energies  which  are  intrinsic  in 
the  evolving  matter,  and  without  interference 

of  agencies  that  are  external  to  it.  It  holds 

48 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


this  to  be  true  of  the  combinations  and  forms 
of  inorganic  nature  as  well.”  This  definition 
renders  spontaneous  generation  necessary. 
Cope  further  says:  “Failure  of  the  attempts 
to  demonstrate  spontaneous  generation  will 
prove,  if  continued,  fatal  to  this  theory.” 

He  also  recognizes  two  classes  of  force. 
He  says:  “I  have  termed  these  classes  the  ana- 
genetic,  which  are  exclusively  vital,  and  the 
catagenetic,  which  are  physical  and  chemical. 
The  anagenetie  class  tends  to  upward  progress 
in  the  organic  sense;  that  is,  towards  the  in¬ 
creasing  control  of  its  environment  by  the  or¬ 
ganism,  and  towards  the  progressive  develop¬ 
ment  of  consciousness  and  mind.  The  cata- 
genetie  energies  tend  to  the  creation  of  a  stable 
equilibrium  of  matter,  in  which  molar  motion 
is  not  produced  from  within,  and  sensation  is 
impossible.  In  popular  language  the  one  class 
of  energies  tends  to  life;  the  other  to  death.” 

Both  of  these  classes  of  energy  are  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  growth  of  a  tree,  in  which  the 
life  forces  of  the  tree  during  growth  overcome 
the  inorganic  forces  in  the  carbon  dioxide  and 
other  plant  foods,  and  thus  obtain  their  nour¬ 
ishment.  When  the  plant  dies  the  death  forces 
prevail,  and  its  substance  is  finally  reduced  to 
the  stable  inorganic  forms  of  matter. 

Again,  Cope  says:  “If  the  tendency  of  the 

catagenetic  energies  is  away  from  vital  phe- 
4  49 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


nomena,  it  is  impossible  that  they,  or  any  of 
them,  should  be  the  cause  of  the  origin  of 
living  matter.  This  logical  inference  is  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  failure  of  all  attempts  to  demon¬ 
strate  spontaneous  generation  of  living  organ¬ 
isms  from  inorganic  matter.’ ’ 

Herbert  Spencer  spent  much  time  in  trying 
to  establish  evolution  on  “matter,  motion  and 
force”  as  the  only  data.  I  need  not  add  that 
he  proved  nothing  in  favor  of  spontaneous 
generation.  As  an  agnostic,  he  referred  all 
to  the  “unknown  and  “unknowable ”  power. 

It  is  evident  from  the  preceding  that  spon¬ 
taneous  generation  is  a  necessary  part  of  evolu¬ 
tion;  that  the  efforts  to  prove  it  true  have  re¬ 
sulted  in  total  failure,  and  that  the  fact  that 
life  comes  only  from  life  is  the  established  fact 
of  science.  The  very  basis  of  organic  evolu¬ 
tion  is  thus  eliminated.  The  theory  can  have 
no  standing  even  as  a  philosophy,  since  it 
plainly  contradicts  a  well-known  fact.  It  be¬ 
gins  evolution  without  a  beginning — without 
a  living  thing. 


50 


FAILURES  OF  EVOLUTION. 


I  SUBMIT  a  summary  of  some  of  the  more 
evident  places  where,  in  the  progress  of 
events,  naturalism  fails  to  account  for  what 
has  taken  place. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  changes  have 
taken  place  through  the  long  ages  of  the 
earth’s  history,  but  to  call  all  of  these  changes 
evolution  in  the  Darwinian  sense  is  entirely 
misleading.  I  have  elsewhere  considered  this. 

I  think  it  is  evident  that  intelligence  and 
design,  calling  for  more  than  natural  forces 
can  accomplish,  are  manifested  in  the  history 
of  the  earth.  I  believe  that  the  supernatural, 
including  what  we  call  miracles,  has  often 
occurred,  and  yet  without  violating  the  so- 
called  “laws  of  nature.”  These  “laws”  are 
only  the  methods  according  to  which  the  forces 
of  nature  act.  As  I  have  stated  elsewhere,  the 
natural  forces,  under  the  control  of  intelligence 
and  free  will,  can  be  made  to  bring  about 
many  different  results  that  would  otherwise 

not  occur.  I  believe  that  the  history  of  the 

51 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


world  has  been  under  the  control  of  God,  and 
that  he  has  exercised  his  power  in  both  a 
natural  and  a  supernatural  way. 

The  expression  “laws  of  nature”  is  liable 
to  be  misleading  when  applied  to  the  action 
of  free  mind  which  can  choose  and  determine 
results  produced  by  forces.  The  “laws  of  na¬ 
ture”  are  not  forces  and  they  govern  nothing. 

There  can  be  no  conflict  between  the  natural 
and  the  supernatural,  for  God  is  the  author  of 
both.  Neither  includes  nor  excludes  the  other. 

As  to  design  in  the  mind  of  an  intelligent 
God,  I  have  claimed  that  the  physical  and 
spiritual  well-being  of  man,  made  in  the  image 
of  God,  is  entirely  worthy  of  Deity. 

Evolution,  naturalism,  fails,  among  others, 
in  the  following  respects: 

1.  It  can  not  account  for  the  simple  sub¬ 
stances  of  the  right  kinds  and  quantities  that 
are  necessary  for  the  bodies  of  all  living  things. 
There  is  no  possibility  that  evolution  could 
have  prepared  these  elements  by  chance  nor 
that  the  process  could  have  provided  the  six¬ 
teen  elements  that  are  components  of  the  body 
of  man.  I  have  referred  to  this  in  a  previous 
chapter. 

2.  The  origin  of  life  is  beyond  evolution  to 
account  for.  All  attempts  to  discover  life’s 
origin  have  been  hopeless  failures.  “All  life 
comes  from  life”  is  the  known  fact.  That  a 

52 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


living,  self-nourishing,  self-propagating  being 
has  been  produced  by  dead,  inorganic  matter 
and  the  forces  of  nature  is,  and  must  be, 
assumed  as  the  beginning  of  the  process  of 
organic  evolution.  This  assumption  is  the 
necessary  foundation  of  the  whole  theory. 
This  violent  assumption  is  a  strange  beginning 
for  the  so-called  “scientific  doctrine ”  of  evolu¬ 
tion.  The  word  “ science’ ’  implies  knowledge 
and  not  assumption. 

3.  Evolution  can  give  no  account  of  the 
separation  of  the  organic  world  into  plants 
and  animals.  Plants  alone  can  live  on  in¬ 
organic  food,  while  animals  live  mostly  on 
organic  food.  Plants  are  deoxydizing  agents; 
animals,  oxydizing.  Without  the  plant  the 
animal  can  not  exist.  The  functions  of  the 
two  are  largely  opposed  to  each  other.  Evolu¬ 
tion  knows  nothing  as  to  how  the  two  groups  of 
organisms  ever  became  so  widely  separated. 
The  plant  is  engaged  largely  in  storing  up 
energy  and  the  animal  in  dissipating  energy. 

4.  Evolution  fails  to  explain  in  any  way 
the  origin  of  sex.  The  first  organisms,  accord¬ 
ing  to  this  theory,  were  individual  plant  cells, 
which  multiplied  by  the  division  of  the  nucleus 
and  the  constriction  of  the  cell  into  two  parts, 
thus  becoming  two  new  organisms.  This  is  the 
simplest  known  method  of  reproduction.  In 

the  sexual  method  of  reproduction  two  unlike 

53 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


cells,  generally  from  male  and  female  individ¬ 
uals,  unite  in  a  wonderful  and  complex  way, 
thus  producing  one  new  individual.  The 
changes  that  take  place  in  this  process  have 
been  described  by  Komanes  as  among  the  most 
wonderful  that  the  microscope  has  ever  re¬ 
vealed. 

5.  If  you  try  to  imagine  how  the  sub-king¬ 
doms  of  animals  branched  from  a  common  an¬ 
cestral  stock,  you  only  laugh  at  your  folly. 
Try  to  think  of  fish,  brachiopod,  trilobite, 
spider,  coral-forming  polyp,  onthoceras  and 
insect  as  branching  from  a  common  stock ! 
These,  and  many  other  forms,  appeared  early 
in  the  geological  history  of  the  earth.  We 
are  required  by  the  theory  to  accept  without 
evidence  the  statement  that  they  branched  from 
a  common  stock. 

6.  Evolution  knows  nothing  whatever  as  to 
how  any  of  the  organs  of  the  body  have  origi¬ 
nated.  The  feeble  effort  which  she  makes  to 
explain  the  origin  of  legs  from  no  legs  is  indeed 
laughable,  if  not  pitiable.  The  effort  rather 
excites  one’s  contempt  for  the  man  who  makes 
the  ignoble  effort.  It  has  been  truthfully  said 
that  “you  can  not  get  blood  out  of  a  turnip.’ ’ 

No  wonder  that  Darwin  almost  had  a  cold 
chill  when  he  considered  the  evolution  of  the 
eyes  of  vertebrates.  I  almost  lose  my  respect 

for  the  human  mind  when  I  see  men  trying 

54 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


to  trace  the  evolution  of  the  human  eye  from 
“eyespecks”  that  are  found  in  starfishes  and 
other  low  forms.  The  faith  required  to  believe 
it  true  is  far  greater  than  the  faith  of  Abra 
ham.  Evolution  demands  of  its  devotee  gulli¬ 
bility  at  every  step.  Bergson,  in  his  “Creative 
Evolution,  ”  pages  64  and  65,  calls  attention  to 
some  of  the  insuperable  difficulties  of  account¬ 
ing  for  the  evolution  of  eyes.  We  know  noth¬ 
ing  as  to  the  origin  of  any  of  the  numerous 
eyes,  legs,  wings  and  other  organs  that  exist  in 
the  animal  kingdom.  Endless  “ifs”  and  “ pre¬ 
sumptions’  *  and  “  assumptions’  *  are  necessary 
at  every  step  of  evolution.  But  it  is  said  that 
it  all  occurred  according  to  the  “scientific  proc¬ 
ess!”  It  is  claimed  that  the  fact  of  organic 
evolution  needs  no  further  proof.  (?)  Dr. 
Romanes  has  shown  that  the  electric  organs  of 
certain  fishes  can  not  have  been  preserved  be¬ 
cause  useful  nor  for  any  other  known  reason. 
He  presents  this  as  a  vital  fact  against 
Darwinism. 

7.  Evolution  only  guesses  at  the  origin  of 
mammals.  Remains  of  the  oldest  known  mam¬ 
mals  of  the  size  of  rats  and  mice  have  been 
found  in  the  Triassic  of  the  Mesozoic  age. 
During  all  of  this  age,  which  was  quite  long 
geologically,  no  larger  mammals  than  rats  and 
mice  are  known  to  have  existed.  How  these 

warm-blooded  mammals  with  non-nucleated 

55 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


red  blood  corpuscles,  and  covered  with  hair, 
and  possessing  milk  glands  developed  for  nurs¬ 
ing  their  young,  could  have  been  evolved  from 
a  cold-blooded  reptile  with  nucleated  red 
blood  corpuscles  and  with  no  milk  glands  and 
covered  with  scales,  is  a  problem  for  the  evolu¬ 
tionist  which  he  easily  solves  by  saying  that 
it  undoubtedly  took  place.  We  imagine  the 
small,  lizard-like  vertebrates  reclining  in  the 
Mesozoic  sunshine,  clasping  their  young  to  their 
bosoms  in  order  to  induce  the  milk  of  kind¬ 
ness  to  flow  into  the  mouths  of  their  hungry 
offspring.  The  nursing  instinct  in  both  mother 
and  offspring  and  the  milk  glands  must  all 
appear  at  the  same  time,  otherwise  the  process 
fails.  It  all  had  to  be  developed  suddenly  in 
a  single  generation  in  order  to  succeed,  and 
then  to  be  handed  down  to  their  posterity.  It 
was  easy  and  simple  to  evolve  the  hair  of  these 
mammals  from  the  scales  of  the  lizards  because 
the  two  are  homologous.  These  “scientific” 
facts  necessary  to  “scientific  evolution”  are 
easily  verified  by  the  use  of  the  scientific  im¬ 
agination.  The  beauty  of  the  whole  process 
is  that  it  is  scientific ,  and  does  not  need  God. 
It  needs  only  matter  and  blind  force. 

Immediately  after  the  Cretaceous  of  the 
Mesozoic  age,  in  which  only  a  few  remains  of 
mammals  have  been  found,  and  which  belonged 
to  animals  of  the  size  of  rats  and  mice,  there 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


appeared  in  the  Tertiary  of  the  Cenozoic  age 
many  large  mammals  of  many  kinds  belonging 
to  various  orders.  These  were  found  in  great 
abundance  and  were  widely  scattered.  Among 
the  mammals  was  the  zeuglodon  whale,  seventy 
feet  long,  which  existed  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 
The  only  known  geological  source  from  which 
these  numerous  large  mammals  could  have 
been  derived  was  the  few  extremely  small  mam¬ 
mals  of  the  Cretaceous.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  they  thus  originated.  That  this  whale  was 
evolved  from  some  land  mammal  which  was 
forced  into  the  sea  to  seek  its  food  is  an  as¬ 
sumption  that  evolution  must  accept  without 
proof.  But  the  stress,  or  the  distress,  of  abso¬ 
lute  necessity  declares  that  the  whale  thus 
originated.  Thus  the  process  of  evolution  glides 
merrily  along  and  every  chasm  is  easily  bridged 
with  a  new  assumption. 

8.  The  absence  of  connecting  links  can  not 
be  accounted  for  by  evolution.  Mr.  Darwin 
says:  “I  do  not  pretend  that  I  should  ever 
have  suspected  how  poor  was  the  record  in  the 
best  preserved  geological  sections,  had  not  the 
absence  of  innumerable  transitional  links  be¬ 
tween  the  species  which  lived  at  the  commence¬ 
ment  and  close  of  each  formation  pressed  so 
hardly  on  my  theory.  ”  If  the  “  transitional 
links’ ’  ever  existed,  their  absence  can  not  be 

accounted  for.  They  were  composed  of  the 

57 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 

I,  .  .  1 1.,  .  .  n t 


same  kinds  of  materials  as  those  preserved. 
Romanes  speaks  of  the  geological  record  as  a 
“chapter  of  accidents,”  because  of  the  fewness 
of  necessary  connecting  links. 

Again,  Darwin  says :  ‘  ‘  The  number,  both  of 
specimens  and  of  species,  preserved  in  our 
museums,  is  absolutely  as  nothing  compared 
with  the  number  of  generations  which  must 
have  passed  away,  even  during  a  single  forma¬ 
tion.  ’  ’ 

Le  Conte  says:  “We  think  the  fragmentari¬ 
ness  of  the  geological  record  has  been  over¬ 
stated.”  He  says  that  there  are  hundreds  of 
feet  in  succession  of  Tertiary  fresh-water 
deposits  crowded  with  fossils  of  many  species 
and  the  connecting  links  are  absent.  He  speaks 
of  the  absence  of  “connecting  links”  as  “the 
greatest  of  all  objections”  to  evolution.  He 
also  says:  “The  change  is  apparently  by  sub¬ 
stitution  of  one  species  for  another,  and  not  by 
transmutation  of  one  species  into  another.  So 
also  in  successive  geological  faunas,  the  change 
seems  rather  by  substitution  than  by  trans¬ 
mutation.  ’  ’ 

According  to  Darwin  and  Romanes  and 
others,  the  missing  links  far  outnumber  the 
known  species ,  and  these  missing  forms  are 
simply  assumed  to  have  existed  because  the 
theory  of  evolution  demands  it.  There  is  no 

escape  from  making  this  assumption. 

58 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Huxley  says:  “There  is  not  a  single  class 
of  vertebrated  animals  which,  when  it  first 
appears,  is  represented  by  analogues  of  the 
lowest  known  members  of  the  same  class. 
Therefore,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  doctrine 
of  evolution,  every  class  must  be  vastly  older 
than  the  first  record  of  its  appearance  upon  the 
surface  of  the  globe.” 

In  other  words,  there  is  no  evidence  from 
fossils  that  any  one  of  the  highly  developed, 
oldest-known  forms  of  vertebrates  was  evolved 
from  lower  forms. 

As  stated  elsewhere,  if  the  so-called  “tree 
of  life”  be  considered  beginning  with  the  first 
organic  cell  as  a  seed  and,  from  this,  growing 
up  and  branching  so  as  to  include  all  animals 
and  plants  that  would  be  necessary  according  to 
the  theory  of  evolution,  then  the  whole  lower 
half  would  have  to  be  erased  for  lack  of  fossils 
that  show  that  it  ever  existed ;  and  nearly  all  of 
the  upper  half  would  have  to  be  erased,  thus 
leaving  a  few  separated  spots  which  show  no 
organic  connection  between  each  other.  A  tree 
is  an  apt  figure  if  evolution  took  place,  but, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  exists  only  in  the 
imagination  of  the  evolutionist. 

9.  Evolution  of  species  has  not  been  proved. 
Darwin’s  son,  in  writing  his  father’s  biogra¬ 
phy,  says:  “We  can  not  prove  that  a  single 

59 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


species  has  changed/’  And  yet  evolutionists 
claim  that  all  species  have  changed. 

Huxley  wrote:  “After  much  consideration, 
and  with  assuredly  no  bias  against  Mr.  Dar¬ 
win’s  views,  it  is  our  clear  conviction  that,  as 
the  evidence  now  stands,  it  is  not  absolutely 
proven  that  a  group  of  animals,  having  all  the 
characters  exhibited  by  species  in  nature,  has 
ever  been  originated  by  selection,  whether 
artificial  or  natural.  Groups  having  the  morpho¬ 
logical  character  of  species,  distinct  and  perma¬ 
nent  races  in  fact,  have  been  so  produced  over 
and  over  again;  but  there  is  no  positive  evi¬ 
dence,  at  present,  that  any  group  of  animals 
has,  by  variation  and  selective  breeding,  given 
rise  to  another  group  which  was  even  in  the 
least  degree  infertile  with  the  first.”  In  other 
words,  cross-sterility  between  the  many  varie¬ 
ties  of  pigeons,  which  Mr.  Darwin  studied,  was 
not  produced.  All  of  these  varieties,  however 
different  from  each  other  in  appearance,  were 
cross-fertile  with  each  other,  and  their  off¬ 
spring  were  fertile.  It  is  admitted  that  if  all 
these  varieties  had  been  turned  together,  they 
would  have  disappeared  as  varieties  and  a 
common  form  would  have  resulted. 

Nature  has  no  method  to  produce  cross¬ 
sterility  between  varieties.  But  cross-sterility 
between  groups  of  animals,  known  as  species, 

is  the  rule.  According  to  the  theory  of  evolu- 

50 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


tion,  these  species,  which  are  now  cross-sterile, 
were  evolved  from  varieties  which  were  cross- 
fertile.  There  was  no  other  source  from  which 
to  get  them.  The  fact  is  that  cross-sterility  be¬ 
tween  varieties  has  not  been  produced  nor  is  it 
known  to  have  taken  place  in  nature.  Occa¬ 
sionally,  closely  related  species  cross,  but  their 
product  is  not  fertile,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
horse  and  the  ass. 

10.  Evolution  has  no  means  in  a  state  of 
nature  to  prevent  variations  in  individuals  from 
being  lost  by  merging  in  the  common  stock.  If 
a  variation  occurs,  it  is  soon  lost  by  mingling, 
and  the  species  is  thus  kept  at  a  common  level. 
Variations  take  place  in  all  directions,  and,  by 
mingling  these,  the  species  is  kept  constant. 

11.  Mr.  Darwin  says:  “In  what  manner  the 
mental  powers  were  first  developed  in  the  lowest 
organisms  we  have  no  conception.”  He  admits 
that  the  inquiry  is  hopeless. 

Herbert  Spencer  says:  “That  a  unit  of  feel¬ 
ing  has  nothing  in  common  with  a  unit  of  mo¬ 
tion,  becomes  more  than  ever  manifest  when  we 
bring  the  two  into  juxtaposition/’  Evolution 
based  on  “matter,  motion  and  force”  knows 
nothing  as  to  the  origin  of  feeling.  Sensation, 
sometimes  very  dull,  is  found  in  all  animals. 
Evolutionists  know  not  how  it  came.  They  sim¬ 
ply  assume  that  it  was  evolved  from  matter 

and  force.  This  assumption  is  to  be  accepted  as 

61 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


a  fact  in  their  assumed  scientific  process.  Logic 
suffers  all  violence  at  their  hands. 

12.  Evolution  can  offer  nothing  as  to  the  ori¬ 
gin  of  the  many  complex  instincts.  True,  Mr. 
Darwin  has  attempted  to  explain  the  origin  of 
the  highly  developed  instincts  in  the  neuters  of 
certain  colonies  of  ants  and  in  the  neuters  of 
the  honey-bee  which  leave  no  offspring.  How 
the  many  instincts  in  the  neuter  honey-bees, 
which  leave  no  offspring,  could  have  been 
evolved  is,  I  think,  beyond  all  reasonable  ex¬ 
planation.  Mr.  Darwin  says,  in  concluding  his 
chapter  on  instincts:  “I  do  not  pretend  that 
the  facts  given  in  this  chapter  strengthen  in 
any  great  degree  my  theory;  but  none  of  the 
cases  of  difficulty,  to  the  best  of  my  judgment, 
annihilates  it.” 

In  referring  to  the  difficulty  of  the  instincts 
of  two  kinds  of  sterile  ants  in  the  same  colony, 
he  says :  ‘  ‘  This  is  by  far  the  most  serious  special 
difficulty  which  my  theory  has  encountered.” 

I  have  devoted  a  chapter  to  “Instincts”  in 
my  book  “Organic  Evolution  Considered.” 

13.  Matter  and  force,  the  only  data  of  the 
philosophy  of  evolution,  totally  fail  to  account 
for  the  mind  of  man.  This  philosophy  is  a 
question  of  origins,  from  beginning  to  end. 
When  Mr.  Darwin  says,  “In  what  manner  the 
mental  powers  were  first  developed  in  the  low¬ 
est  organisms,  is  as  hopeless  an  inquiry  as  how 

62 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


life  first  originated/’  he  simply  evades  two  of 
the  most  important  questions  that  are  necessary 
parts  of  his  theory  when  projected  backward 
to  a  beginning.  Mr.  Darwin  at  no  place  in 
his  process  of  creation  acknowledges  an  intelli¬ 
gent  God,  but  relies  strictly  upon  natural  proc¬ 
esses  which  are  based  upon  matter  and  force. 

Prof.  H.  W.  Conn  says  of  natural  selection: 
“But,  after  all,  the  greatest  strength  of  the 
law  of  natural  selection  has  been  in  the  fact 
that  it  has  furnished  a  natural  law  as  a  substi¬ 
tute  for  supernatural  intelligence.”  He  under¬ 
stands  that  Darwin  excludes  intelligence  from 
the  whole  process,  and  this  leaves  only  matter 
and  fluid  force  as  factors.  He  acknowledges 
that  he  has  no  beginning  for  even  the  simplest 
mental  process  in  the  lowest  animals  and  much 
less,  if  possible,  for  the  faculties  of  the  human 
mind.  His  process  is  atheistic. 

In  saying  this  I  do  not  mean  that  organic 
evolution  might  not  in  part  be  theistic,  but  Mr. 
Darwin  does  not  make  it  so. 

He  claims  that  man’s  powers  of  mind  differ 
in  degree,  but  not  in  kind,  from  those  of  the 
lower  animals.  He  holds  that  man,  body  and 
mind,  has  been  evolved  from  an  anthropomor¬ 
phous  ape.  I  can  point  out  only  a  few  of  the 
cases  where  man’s  mental  powers  are  not 
possessed  by  animals.  Conscience  belongs  to 

man  alone.  No  animal  has  it.  We  do  not 

63 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


attribute  moral  quality  to  a  brute.  No  animal 
is  known  to  suffer  in  conscience  for  any  mis¬ 
deed.  Freedom  of  the  will  to  act  from  mo¬ 
tives  that  conscience  approves,  belongs  to  man 
alone.  Without  this  freedom,  there  could  be 
no  conscience;  that  imperious  word  “ ought’ ’ 
could  make  no  demands. 

Self-consciousness  is  possessed  by  man  alone. 
He  can  think  about  his  own  mental  conditions, 
compare  his  thoughts  as  if  they  were  external 
objects,  bring  together  the  past,  the  present 
and,  in  imagination,  the  future,  and  reason 
about  them  as  realities.  He  can  realize  that 
he  is  the  same  person,  though  changed,  that 
he  was  in  his  youth.  He  can  examine  his  own 
mental  being  and  pass  judgment  upon  it  as 
if  it  were  another  person.  No  animal  has  this 
power. 

In  no  important  sense  do  animals  have  the 
power  to  reason,  compared  with  man’s  power 
to  carry  on  an  extensive  process  of  reasoning 
in  many  fields  of  thought.  The  sounds  made 
by  animals,  by  means  of  which  they  communi¬ 
cate,  are  not  to  be  dignified  as  language  by 
comparing  them  with  the  speech  of  man. 
Human  languages,  with  their  many  thousand 
words,  embody  the  thoughts  of  the  human 
mind.  Language  embodies  thought.  Animals 
have  no  thoughts  to  embody.  Their  so-called 

language  is  but  the  instinctive  expression  of 

64 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


their  feelings.  No  animal  can  entertain  an 
abstract  idea  snch  as  is  embodied  in  any  one  of 
a  multitude  of  human  words.  This  is  beyond 
their  power.  Think  of  the  mind  of  a  dog, 
horse  or  ape  in  connection  with  chemistry, 
physics,  Greek,  Latin,  medicine,  surgery,  best 
method  of  farming,  or  any  great  subject,  and 
you  only  smile  at  the  thought.  Universal  love, 
the  “noblest  power  of  man,’7  is  acknowledged 
to  be  beyond  their  ability  to  entertain.  They 
do  not  contemplate  sending  relief  to  their  kin¬ 
dred  in  China  or  Armenia. 

Man  has  flooded  the  world  with  tools  and 
inventions  of  a  million  kinds  for  all  conceivable 
purposes.  He  has  modified  and  directed  the 
forces  of  nature  to  utilize  his  inventions.  It 
is  said  that  an  ape  will  sometimes  use  stones  to 
crack  nuts  or  roll  them  downhill  against  his 
enemies.  That  is  all. 

The  idea  of  one  spiritual  God — omnipotent, 
omniscient,  omnipresent — a  God  of  universal 
love  and  holiness  who  condemns  sin  in  all  its 
forms,  but  who  can  forgive  the  penitent  sin¬ 
ner,  is  the  most  comprehensive  that  can  enter 
the  human  mind.  The  idea  of  the  one  spiritual 
God,  as  set  forth  in  the  first  chapters  of  Gen¬ 
esis,  could  not  have  been  born  of  the  human 
mind,  but  it  came  as  a  revelation,  as  a  light¬ 
ning  flash  from  heaven  to  man.  This  idea  came 

not  by  reason,  by  philosophy  nor  by  science. 

5  65 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


“In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth”  is  a  conclusion,  the  greatest  that 
was  ever  drawn,  and  without  human  premises. 
Modern  materialistic  philosophy,  in  the  form 
of  universal  evolution,  is  no  substitute  for  this 
first  sentence  of  the  Bible. 

All  of  the  nations  except  Israel  were  poly¬ 
theists.  The  Greeks,  with  all  their  culture  in 
art,  literature  and  philosophy,  did  not  build 
their  civilization  upon  monotheism,  but  upon 
polytheism.  Their  civilization  perished  for 
lack  of  a  moral  basis. 

The  Israelites,  a  small  nation  surrounded 
by  polytheists  on  every  hand,  with  the  idea  of 
the  one  God  firmly  rooted  in  their  mind  by 
their  inspired  teachers,  kept  on  their  way,  as 
the  Gulf  Stream  in  the  ocean,  enduring  perse¬ 
cutions,  wars  and  captivities  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah,  and  so  they  have  endured  unto  this 
day.  The  idea  of  the  one  God  runs  as  a  golden 
cord  through  the  sixty-six  books  of  the  Bible 
and  binds  them  together  as  one  consistent 
whole,  although  these  books  were  written 
through  a  period  of  hundreds  of  years  and  in 
widely  separated  regions.  The  idea  of  the 
existence  of  the  one  spiritual  God  originated  in 
the  human  mind,  not  through  matter  and  the 
blind  forces  of  nature,  but  necessarily  as  a 
direct  revelation  from  God,  as  set  forth  in  the 
Bible. 


66 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


No  animal  has  a  religions  nature.  It  would 
seem  superfluous  to  make  this  statement.  Mr. 
Darwin  says:  ‘‘The  feeling  of  religious  devo¬ 
tion  is  a  highly  complex  one,  consisting  of 
love,  complete  submission  to  an  exalted  and 
mysterious  superior,  a  strong  sense  of  depen¬ 
dence,  fear,  reverence,  gratitude,  hope  for  the 
future,  and,  perhaps,  other  elements.  No  being 
could  experience  so  complex  an  emotion  until 
advanced  in  his  intellectual  and  moral  facul¬ 
ties  to  at  least  a  moderately  high  level.”  This 
confirms  my  statement.  Prayer,  praise,  rever¬ 
ence,  love,  gratitude,  a  sense  of  dependence, 
hope,  belief  in  a  future  life,  consciousness  of 
sin  and  forgiveness — all  related  to  the  existence 
of  a  supreme  spiritual  God — are  beyond  the 
powers  of  any  animal  to  realize.  We  at  once 
realize  that  we  can  not  substitute  any  animal 
for  man  as  a  religious  being.  Even  the  lowest 
savages  accept  Christianity.  Still,  Mr.  Darwin 
does,  and  must,  claim  that  man  as  a  religious 
being  has  been  evolved  from  some  animal. 

14.  The  mind  of  man  with  a  free  will  is  not 
subject  to  the  Darwinian  theory  of  evolution 
as  applied  to  organisms.  Continuous  genetic 
descent  must  exist  among  animals  if  the  theory 
of  evolution  is  true.  Unbroken  physical  con¬ 
tinuity  must  have  existed  between  any  living 
species  and  the  first  living  thing  from  which 

the  process  of  evolution  started.  Continuity 

67 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


must  exist,  otherwise  the  process  ends  where 
continuity  is  broken. 

There  can  be  no  continuity  between  the 
mental  actions  of  minds  that  have  free  will. 
Thoughts  are  not  inherited.  If  they  were  all 
inherited,  the  individual  could  not  advance 
beyond  his  parents.  Neither  does  the  in¬ 
dividual  obtain  all  his  ideas  from  his  contem¬ 
poraries,  for  the  world  is  full  of  improvements 
and  inventions  that  represent  original  thought. 
Men  are  under  obligations  to  their  fellow-men 
for  much  thought,  but  their  individual  efforts 
often  lead  them  far  beyond  what  they  receive 
from  their  fellows. 

The  history  of  the  world  is  a  history  of 
human  thought  in  all  fields  of  effort.  This, 
for  lack  of  continuity,  can  not  be  regarded  as 
evolution.  There  has  been  continual  change, 
sometimes  progress,  but  these  alone  do  not  con¬ 
stitute  evolution.  Genetic  continuity  can 
easily  be  traced  in  case  of  real  evolution  of 
organic  forms,  but  no  such  continuity  can  exist 
in  the  case  of  free  mental  action.  Evolution 
and  freedom  of  the  will  are  incompatible. 

15.  Evolution  founded  on  matter  and  force 
alone,  and  that  theistic  evolution  which  confines 
God  to  naturalism,  eliminates  the  Bible  as  the 
book  of  authority  in  religion  by  denying  every¬ 
thing  that  is  supernatural.  Miracles,  revela¬ 
tions  and  objective  answers  to  prayer  could 

68 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


not  have  taken  place  by  the  so-called  scientific 
method. 

It  was  not  by  the  process  of  evolution  that 
God  called  Abraham,  that  He  called  to  Moses 
out  of  the  burning  bush,  that  He  gave  to  Moses 
the  Ten  Commandments  on  the  mount,  that  He 
sent  down  fire  on  Elijah’s  altar  in  answer  to 
prayer,  or  that  He  healed  Naaman  when  he 
had  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  the  river 
Jordan.  It  was  not  by  the  scientific  process  of 
evolution  that  the  Holy  Spirit  overshadowed 
the  Virgin  Mary,  so  that  she  conceived  and 
bore  a  son.  It  was  not  by  evolution  that  Jesus 
turned  water  into  wine,  gave  sight  to  the  blind, 
cleansed  lepers,  raised  the  young  man  alive 
from  the  bier,  and  called  forth  Lazarus  from 
the  tomb.  It  was  not  by  evolution  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  descended  in  the  bodily  form  of 
a  dove  at  Christ’s  baptism,  and  that  a  voice 
from  heaven  announced,  “This  is  my  beloved 
Son.”  It  was  not  evolution  when,  on  the 
mount  of  transfiguration,  a  voice  was  heard 
saying,  1  ‘  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  hear  ye 
him.”  The  body  of  Christ  was  not  raised 
from  the  dead  by  the  “scientific”  process  of 
evolution. 

Miracles  not  being  possible  as  a  part  of  the 
universal  process  of  evolution,  there  was  noth¬ 
ing  miraculous  in  the  birth  of  Christ,  and, 

consequently,  He  was  only  a  man,  and  had  not 

69 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


all  authority  in  heaven  and  on  earth;  there 
being  no  miracles,  Christ’s  body  did  not  rise 
from  the  dead,  and  He,  not  having  arisen  from 
the  dead,  did  not  associate  with  His  disciples 
forty  days,  nor  did  He  command  His  apostles 
to  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the 
apostles  did  not  speak  with  tongues  as  the 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance,  nor  did  Christ 
speak  to  Paul  when  he  was  converted,  nor  did 
any  of  the  apostles  perform  the  miracles  that 
are  recorded  of  them.  Christ,  according  to  this 
theory,  was  only  a  man  who  came  by  evolution. 
The  confession  of  Him  as  the  Son  of  God  can 
not  mean  that  He  is  Deity.  The  shedding  of 
His  blood,  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  have 
no  authority  except  that  of  a  man.  Forgive¬ 
ness  of  sins  could  not  take  place  according  to 
this  theory,  for  nature’s  laws  are  all  merciless. 
Man  “fell  up”  and  not  down.  He  does  not 
sin,  but  only  makes  mistakes  and  needs  no 
forgiveness.  Man,  being  under  the  dominion 
of  law,  has  no  free  will  and  so  ought  not  to 
have  a  conscience. 

But  the  fact  that  he  has  a  conscience  is  un¬ 
mistakable  evidence  that  his  will  is  free.  Our 
own  self-consciousness  confirms  this  beyond  all 
arguments  to  the  contrary.  No  logic  can  defeat 
the  validity  of  the  conclusions  of  our  own 


consciousness. 


70 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


The  supernatural,  that  which  nature  can 
not  perform  according  to  any  known  laws,  is 
a  dominant  idea  throughout  the  Bible.  The 
natural  and  the  supernatural  are  not  identical. 
Science  has  a  natural  basis  only;  the  religion 
of  the  Bible  contains  a  large  supernatural  ele¬ 
ment.  There  can  he  no  conflict  between  true 
science  and  true  religion ,  for  God  is  the  author 
of  both.  The  difficulty  arises  when  naturalism 
attempts  to  usurp  the  whole  field,  by  claiming 
that  it  is  the  only  method  by  which  God 
works, 


71 


VI. 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONNAIRE 

By  Chancellor  David  Starr  Jordan  and  Dr. 
Ray  Leman  Wilbur,  of  Leland  Stanford 
University. 

HE  following  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  which 


1  was  sent  to  Chancellor  Jordan,  accompany¬ 
ing  the  questionnaire.  The  letter  is  substantial¬ 
ly  the  same  as  those  sent  out  to  the  other 
university  presidents  whose  answers  are  con¬ 
tained  in  this  volume,  and  will  not  be  repeated 
in  considering  each  answer: 


Lexington,  Ky.,  June  12,  1920. 


Chancellor  David  Starr  Jordan, 

Stanford  University,  Palo  Alto,  Calif. 

Dear  Sir: — I  have  been  making  inquiry  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  obtaining  reliable  information  as  to  the  status 
of  the  subject  of  Darwinism  or  any  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  in  our  educational  system.  A  number  of  the  super¬ 
intendents  of  public  instruction  and  presidents  of  normal 
schools  have  written  to  me  on  the  subject.  From  their 
answers,  I  infer  that  Darwinism,  or  some  other  theory 
of  evolution,  is  commonly  accepted  and  taught  in  prac¬ 
tically  all  of  our  high  schools,  normal  schools,  colleges 
and  universities.  There  does  not,  however,  seem  to  be 


72 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


agreement  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  ‘ 1  evolution.  ’  ’ 
For  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  correct  definition 
especially,  I  write  to  you  and  a  number  of  others. 

Alfred  Fairhurst. 

Chancellor  Jordan  strikes  out  the  word 
4 ‘ other’ ’  before  4 ‘ theory/ *  inserts  the  word 
“organic”  between  “of”  and  “evolution,” 
and  inserts  the  words  “including  it”  after  the 
word  “evolution.”  He  then  says:  “Darwin¬ 
ism  is  evolution  by  natural  selection,  a  constant 
factor  among  living  beings,  but  not  the  sole 
one.  ’  ’  Again  he  says :  “  I  do  not  like  to  use  the 
word  ‘evolution/  Organic  evolution,  planetary 
evolution,  topographic  evolution,  have  different 
meanings.  Whenever  time  elapses,  change 
appears,  and  this  may  always  be  called  evolu¬ 
tion.” 

Questionnaire  with  Jordan’s  answers: 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “  evolution  is  the  science 
of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — ‘ 1 A  good  epigram.  ’  ’ 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution  “is  (1) 
continuous,  progressive  change;  (2)  according  to  fixed 
laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of  resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — Chancellor  Jordan  inserts  between  the  words 
“forces”  and  “correct”  the  words  “and  their  re¬ 
actions  to  external  conditions.”  He  says:  “A  law  is 
merely  the  ascertained  succession  of  events.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  univeisal  process,  beginning  in 
the  inorganic  world  and  flowing  as  a  continuous  stream 
through  the  ages,  including  all  material  and  psycho¬ 
logical  changes  that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take 

73 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


place  in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the  one 
universal  process?  the  one  universal  science? 

Answer — “It  may  be,  as  philosophically  considered. 
But  as  causes,  effects  and  modes  of  operation  in  organic 
beings  are  wholly  unlike  those  of  world  production, 
mountain-forming  and  the  like,  there  is  much  chance  of 
self-deception  in  uniting  the  two  types.’  ’ 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science,  or  only 
a  theory? 

Answer — “Assuredly  a  matter  of  scientific  knowl¬ 
edge,  if  the  word  is  not  too  much  diluted. ’’ 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution  consistent 
with  the  miracles  commonly  attributed  to  Christ  in  the 
New  Testament? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  not  con¬ 
cerned  ;  the  conflict  is  with  common  experience.  ‘  Science 
and  religion  must  each  run  its  course;  I  am  not  responsi¬ 
ble  if  the  meeting-point  be  far  away.  ’ — Darwin.  ’  * 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and  what  will 
be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of  evolution  in  our  public 
schools  on  the  commonly  accepted  teachings  of  the 
New  Testament?  In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be 
modified? 

Answer — ‘ 1  The  teaching  of  evolution  is  only  com¬ 
mon  sense  and  common  experience  expanded.  I  take  it 
that  the  essence  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  does  not  lie  in 
the  recorded  miracles.  ’’ 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolution  ac¬ 
cepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of  which  you  are 
chancellor? 

Answer — “To  the  same  extent  as  the  doctrine  of 
gravitation.  The  living  questions  relate  to  the  details, 
on  many  of  which,  for  lack  of  complete  evidence,  there 
is  much  difference  of  opinion.  In  both  cases  any  other 
theory  consistent  with  the  facts  would  be  given  equal 

74 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


credence.  All  theory  is  provisional.  But  one  could  no 
more  return  to  the  idea  of  separate  creation  of  species 
than  to  the  old  idea  of  planets  steered  through  space  in 
the  hands  of  angels.”  David  Stakr  j0RDAN. 

(In  behalf  also  of  Dr.  Bay  Leman  Wilbur.) 

I  think  that  Chancellor  Jordan  is  correct 
when  he  says:  “I  do  not  like  to  use  the  word 
‘  evolution.  ’  Organic  evolution,  planetary  evo¬ 
lution,  topographic  evolution,  have  different 
meanings.  Whenever  time  elapses,  change 
appears,  and  this  may  always  be  called  evolu¬ 
tion.  ’  ’ 

There  is  much  confusion  in  the  minds  of 
those  who  accept  the  theory  as  to  what  the 
word  “evolution”  means.  I  think  that  the 
word  is  used  largely  to  indicate  the  changes 
that  have  taken  place  in  time  without  reference 
to  causes  or  methods.  It  is  easy  to  understand 
how  this  definition  can  be  accepted,  and  with- 
out  much  thought.  Most  people  seem  to  think 
that  when  they  accept  the  above  idea  they  are 
“up  to  date,”  and  especially  that  they  have 
the  “dynamic,”  which  is  opposed  to  the 
“static,”  theory  of  creation.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  every  one  must  accept  the  idea  that,  as 
time  has  elapsed,  changes  have  continually 
taken  place  in  both  the  dead  and  the  living 
worlds.  The  fact  of  change  is  not  the  whole  of 

evolution.  The  fundamental  question  is  one  of 

75 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


cause  and  method.  Can  science  and  scientific 
methods  explain  the  present  order  of  things? 

In  “Evolution  and  Animal  Life,”  by  Jor¬ 
dan  and  Kellogg  (p.  1),  it  is  stated: 

“This  volume  treats  of  the  elements  of  the  science 
of  organic  evolution.  This  science  belongs  to  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  forces  which  govern  the  changes  in 
organisms.  It  includes  the  influences  which  control 
development  in  the  individual  and  in  the  species  which 
is  the  succession  of  individuals,  together  with  the  laws 
or  observed  sequences  of  events  which  development  ex¬ 
hibits.  Prom  another  point  of  view,  this  is  the  science 
of  life — adaptation. ’  ’ 

In  the  above  quotation,  Chancellor  Jordan 
claims  that  organic  evolution  is  a  science.  He 
also  claims  that  the  principal  thing  involved 
in  the  study  of  this  science  is  “the  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  forces  which  govern  the  changes  in 
organisms.”  In  reading  the  volume,  however, 
I  have  failed  to  see  what  forces  are  involved  in 
organic  evolution. 

The  word  “bionomics,”  first  suggested  by 
Prof.  Patrick  Geddes,  is  preferred  by  the 
authors  to  “organic  evolution.” 

To  quote  further: 

“To  use  the  word  ‘  evolution  *  in  regard  to  this  proc¬ 
ess,  is  to  use  a  philosophic  term  in  connection  with  a 
group  of  scientific  facts.  For  the  word  ‘ evolution* 
means  ‘unrolling.’  It  carries  the  thought  that  some¬ 
thing  which  was  previously  hidden  is  now  brought  to 
light.  This  naturally  leads  to  the  philosophic  sugges- 

76 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


tion  that  whatever  is  evolved  must  be  previously  in¬ 
volved.  This  may  be  true  as  a  matter  of  words,  but  not 
necessarily  so  as  a  matter  of  fact. 

‘‘The  word  ‘evolution,’  then,  belongs  to  philosophy, 
rather  than  to  science.  In  the  philosophy  of  nature  the 
idea  that  present  conditions  are  brought  about  through 
unrolling  or  unveiling  has  had  a  long  existence.  The 
word  ‘evolution’  has  been  frequently  applied  to  the 
process  of  growth  and  maturity  of  the  individual  plant, 
and  again  to  the  process  of  the  derivation  of  species 
from  ancestral  organisms,  and  again  to  the  progressive 
changes  in  the  forms  of  inorganic  bodies,  as  planets  or 
mountains.  Each  one  of  these  meanings  is  essentially 
distinct  from  the  others,  and  each  is  distinct  from  the 
theory  of  evolution  which  existed  in  the  dawn  of  bio¬ 
logical  science. 

“Biological  evolution  and  cosmic  evolution  are  not 
the  same  (p.  6).  They  are  not  true  identities,  because  not 
arising  from  the  same  causes.  It  is  not  clear  that 
science  has  been  really  advanced  through  the  conception 
of  the  essential  unity  of  organic  evolution  and  cosmic 
evolution.  .  .  .  The  laws  which  govern  living  matter  are 
in  a  large  extent  peculiar  to  the  process  of  living.’’ 

From  the  above  it  is  seen  that  the  word 
*  *  evolution  ’  ’  is  a  philosophic  term.  It  is  in¬ 
correctly  used  in  all  of  its  applications.  Few 
words  in  the  English  language  have  been  so 
widely  and  joyfully  received  as  the  word 
“ evolution.’ ’  It  seems  to  many  to  be  the  uni¬ 
versal  panacea  that  explains  all  events.  It 
can  be  applied  at  any  time  and  in  any  place 
in  the  universe,  yielding  perfect  results.  Some 
of  the  answers  which  I  have  received  to  my 

77 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


questions  indicate  almost  a  hilarious  condition 
of  mind  from  the  use  of  the  word  “evolution.” 
It  is  a  conjure  word  to  be  hung  as  an  amulet 
from  the  neck,  ready  for  immediate  use  in  all 
emergencies.  Men  use  it  without  having  any 
true  conception  as  to  what  it  means.  They 
seem  to  think  that  it  has  an  invariable  mean¬ 
ing,  when,  in  fact,  it  has  a  variety  of  meanings 
in  the  various  fields  to  which  it  is  applied. 
The  word  always  implies  the  question  of 
causes  that  are  unseen,  and,  for  the  most  part, 
beyond  the  power  of  science  to  trace,  and 
yet  it  is  generally  defined  by  visible  physical 
results. 

In  my  book  entitled  “Theistie  Evolution,” 
I  have  called  attention  to  some  of  the  various 
senses  in  which  the  word  is  used. 

It  is  evident,  I  think,  that  when  we  properly 
discriminate  between  the  various  parts  of 
cosmic,  or  universal,  evolution,  we  can  readily 
see  that  there  is  no  genetic  connection  between 
them — that  the  one  has  not  grown  out  of  the 
other,  according  to  any  known  or  ascertainable 
laws. 

Chancellor  Jordan,  in  the  book  cited  (p. 
11),  speaking  of  bionomics,  or  organic  evolu¬ 
tion,  says: 

“This  theory  is  now  the  central  axis  of  all  bio¬ 
logical  investigation  in  all  its  branches  from  ethics  to 
histology,  from  anthropology  to  bacteriology.” 

78 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Also  (p.  49)  he  says: 

“The  days  are  now  by  when  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
the  law  of  organic  descent  is  a  debatable  thesis.  ’ } 

He  has  spoken  of  organic  evolution  as  a 
science,  but  in  the  above  he  speaks  of  it  as  a 
theory  that  reigns  supreme  in  considering  the 
organic  world,  and  in  the  last  quotation  he  in¬ 
dicates  his  belief  that  the  evidence  in  favor  of 
this  theory  is  conclusive. 

Again  he  says: 

“Organic  evolution,  or  bionomics,  is  one  of  the 
most  comprehensive  of  all  the  sciences,  including  in  its 
subject-matter  not  only  natural  history,  not  only  proc¬ 
esses  like  cell  division  and  nutrition,  not  only  the  laws 
of  heredity,  variation,  segregation,  natural  selection 
and  mutual  help,  but  all  matters  of  human  history  and 
the  most  complicated  relations  of  civics,  economics  and 
ethics. ,  * 

The  above  definition  of  “organic  evolution ” 
comprehends  the  entire  organic  world,  both 
physical  and  psychological,  all  human  history. 
It  would  account  for  the  origin  of  all  species, 
for  man’s  body  and  his  mind  as  well.  As  a 
logical  necessity,  the  theory  must  be  projected 
backward  from  living  things  into  the  inorganic 
world,  and,  as  pure  science,  which  it  claims  to 
be,  accept  Spencer’s  data — “matter,  motion  and 

force.”  With  these  alone,  it  makes  but  limping, 

79 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


halting  progress  along  the  upward  road  of  a 
hypothetical  evolution. 

In  traveling  this  road  it  soon  becomes  evi¬ 
dent  that  one  is  chasing  a  theory  that  calls  for 
facts  that  do  not  exist — a  philosophy  whose 
base  hangs  over  a  vacuum. 

Chancellor  Jordan,  in  the  book  cited  (p.  70), 
says : 

“Finally,  we  ought  not  to  suppose  that  we  have  al¬ 
ready  reached  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  evolution 
problem,  or  are  indeed  near  such  a  solution.’ ’ 

“We  must  not  conceal  from  ourselves  the 
fact,”  says  Roux,  “that  the  causal  investiga¬ 
tion  of  organisms  is  one  of  the  most  difficult 
problems  which  the  human  intellect  has  at¬ 
tempted  to  solve.” 

Again,  he  says  with  regard  to  organic 
evolution : 

“After  some  years  of  controversy,  mostly  theoretical, 
the  discussion  has  been  tacitly  dropped  by  biologists 
generally.  It  is  recognized  that  the  sole  critical  test  is 
that  of  experiment,  etc.”  (p.  197). 

The  discussion  that  has  been  dropped  is  as 
to  method,  but  the  “consensus  of  the  opinion” 
of  biologists  is  that  organic  evolution  is  a  fact. 
The  proof  of  this  fact  must  depend  on  experi¬ 
ment. 

Evolution  is  to  have  the  “critical  test”  of 

experiment.  In  the  meantime,  however,  it  is 

80 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


to  be  accepted  as  a  fact.  It  would  seem  that 
judgment  might  have  been  suspended  till  the 
“critical  test’7  had  been  satisfactorily  made. 
The  attitude  of  suspended  judgment  in  doubt¬ 
ful  cases  would  be  most  wholesome,  but,  if  it 
prevailed  in  this  case,  the  acceptance  of  the 
theory  would  be,  if  ever,  in  the  distant  future. 

The  theory  of  evolution,  as  held  by  many, 
is  an  effort  by  naturalism  to  preside  at  the 
funeral  of  supernaturalism,  which  it  has 
murdered. 

Chancellor  Jordan  7s  Answer  to 
Question  Five. 

Question — Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attributed  to  Christ 
in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — 1 1  The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  not  con¬ 
cerned.  The  conflict  is  with  common  experience.  ( Science 
and  religion  must  each  run  its  course;  I  am  not  responsi¬ 
ble  if  the  meeting-point  be  far  away.’ — Darwin 

It  is  easy  to  understand  that  known  facts 
of  science  are  “not  concerned77  with  miracles, 
for  the  one  involves  only  the  natural,  while 
the  other  involves  the  supernatural.  It  is  the 
business  of  science  to  make  certain  her  facts, 
and  religion,  which  appeals  to  the  supernatural, 
must  harmonize  with  known  facts  of  science. 
But  when  the  writer  says,  “This  conflict  is 

with  common  experience,77  he  seems  to  “beg 
6  81 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


the  question.’ 9  This  old  way  of  disposing  of 
miracles  by  saying  that  they  are  opposed  to 
human  experience  has  not  been  accepted  as  a 
satisfactory  solution. 

Mr.  Darwin’s  statement  that  “science  and 
religion  must  each  run  its  course;  I  am  not 
responsible  if  the  meeting-point  be  far  away,” 
seems  to  indicate  that  he  was  not  much  con¬ 
cerned  as  to  the  bearing  of  his  theory  on  the 
Christian  religion.  Yet  the  vital  and  all-im¬ 
portant  question  which  evolution  raises  is : 
Can  the  supernatural,  in  the  Christian  sense, 
survive  in  its  presence? 

Chancellor  Jordan  says:  “All  processes  in 
the  universe  are  alike  natural.  .  .  .  All  are 
alike  supernatural,  for  they  all  rest  on  the 
huge  unseen  solidity  of  the  universe,  the  im¬ 
perishability  of  matter,  the  conservation  of 
energy  and  the  immanence  of  law”  (“Evolu¬ 
tion  and  Animal  Life,”  Jordan  and  Kellogg — 
p.  9).  The  author  makes  no  distinction  between 
the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  This  places 
the  Bible  and  the  Christian  religion  on  a  pure¬ 
ly  naturalistic  basis — they  are  made  simply 
human  inventions. 

Effect  on  Teachings  of  New  Testament. 

Question  6 — Wliat,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
■what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of  evolution  in 
our  public  schools  on  the  commonly  accepted  teachings 

82 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


of  the  New  Testament?  In  what  way  must  this  teach¬ 
ing  be  modified? 

Answer — ■*  ‘  The  teaching  of  evolution  is  only  common 
sense  and  common  experience  expanded.  I  take  it  that 
the  essence  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  does  not  lie  in  the 
recorded  miracles.  ’  ’ 

The  above  question  is  most  vital,  because 
it  involves  the  life  of  the  Christian  religion. 
We  have  been  careful  to  exclude  the  Bible 
from  our  public  schools,  and  yet,  in  our  igno¬ 
rance,  we  permit  a  theory  to  be  taught  that 
destroys  the  Bible  as  a  book  of  authority  by 
denying  miracles,  revelations  and  what  the 
Christian  regards  as  supernatural.  I  have  sent 
the  above  list  of  questions  to  the  heads  of  the 
leading  universities  in  the  United  States,  in¬ 
cluding  presidents  of  State  universities,  and 
have  received  answers  from  many  of  them. 
Question  4  is:  “Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as 
a  science,  or  only  a  theory?”  The  great  ma¬ 
jority  of  answers  by  the  presidents  or  their 
representatives  are  that  it  is  a  “theory.”  A 
theory  is  not  a  science.  The  theory  of  evolu¬ 
tion  is  the  greatest,  the  most  comprehensive, 
that  the  mind  of  man  has  grappled  with.  It 
is  an  all-comprehensive  theory  of  naturalism, 
that  eliminates  the  God  of  the  Bible,  or  forces 
Him  into  the  background.  This  theory  can 
have  no  place  for  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  for  the 

cross  or  the  resurrection.  Its  God,  if  it 

83 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


acknowledges  a  God,  is  not  “Our  Father  who 
art  in  heaven.  ”  In  no  respect  can  He  be  a 
Father — a  God  of  love  and  mercy.  He  does 
not  see  the  sparrow  fall,  nor  the  individual, 
but,  at  most,  He  presides,  through  His  laws, 
over  the  destiny  of  the  race. 

It  is  indeed  amazing  that  the  theory  of 
evolution,  over  which  many  master  minds  have 
exhausted  their  powers  without  coming  to  an 
agreement,  should  be  taught  with  approval  in 
many  of  our  public  schools  and  in  most  higher 
institutions  of  learning. 

The  vast  scope  of  the  theory  is  not  compre¬ 
hended  by  most  teachers.  The  average  evolu¬ 
tionist  is  a  dogmatist  of  the  strictest  type.  To 
him  there  is  but  one  side  to  the  theory.  What 
he  knows  on  the  subject  has  been  pumped  into 
him  mechanically.  The  books  that  he  has  read 
are  all  on  one  side.  These  books  are  conclusive. 
To  him  there  is  no  other  side.  He  says:  “I 
agree  with  consensus  of  the  opinion  of  men  of 
science.” 

I  am  told  that  in  the  Ohio  State  University 
library  there  are  from  two  to  three  hun¬ 
dred  volumes  advocating  evolution,  and  only 
two  or  three  volumes  against  it.  This  repre¬ 
sents  the  kind  of  honesty  that  “stuffs  the 
ballot-box.”  Why  can  not  men  of  science  be 
honest  ?  Why  may  not  both  sides  be  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  teacher?  Why  place  the  books 

84 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


of  all  leading  evolutionists  in  the  library  and 
leave  out  all  which  oppose  evolution?  This 
university  library  needs  renovating  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  evolution.  I  have  written  to  the  libra¬ 
rians  of  ten  of  the  leading  universities  asking 
how  many  books  in  their  libraries  favor  and 
how  many  oppose  the  theory  of  evolution,  but 
have  received  no  information,  except  from  two, 
who  state  that  they  are  well  supplied  with 
books  on  the  subject.  I  have  no  positive  in¬ 
formation  as  to  the  kind  of  books  on  this 
subject  in  the  libraries  of  universities,  but  I 
suspect  that  the  condition  of  Ohio  State 
University  represents  the  condition  of  many 
of  them. 

Some  time  ago  I  was  present  at  a  class  of 
about  seventy-five  young  men  and  young 
women,  when  a  professor  of  zoology  lectured 
on  the  subject  of  evolution.  In  fine  style  he 
trotted  out  the  little  four-toed  Eohippus  and 
the  other  hippuses  of  succeeding  periods  to 
prove  that  the  modern  horse  had  been  evolved. 
I  exclaimed  in  mind :  Give  the  Eohippus  a  rest ! 
The  loss  of  a  toe,  if  granted,  does  not  show 
how  he  got  that  toe  by  evolution.  If  you  want 
to  tackle  the  real  problem,  show  how  the  horse 
got  his  toes,  beginning  with  animals  that  had 
no  toes,  nor  legs,  etc. — back,  back  to  the  pri¬ 
mordial  cell.  The  professor  regarded  the  loss 

of  toes  as  good  evidence  of  evolution. 

85 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


warm 


A  young  woman  in  the  class  asked  whether 
the  theory  of  evolution  was  consistent  with  the 
Christian’s  idea  of  God  or  not.  To  this  the 
professor  replied,  in  substance:  “It  makes  no 
difference  to  me  whether  there  is  a  God  or 
not.”  The  public  who  employ  teachers  have  a 
right  to  know  what  they  teach.  Does  it  accord 
with  the  genius  of  our  Government  or  with  our 
Christian  civilization  for  a  professor  to  pro¬ 
claim  his  atheism  to  a  class  of  young  men 
and  women  in  a  State  university?  Is  this  to 
be  accepted  as  a  part  of  our  educational  sys¬ 
tem  ?  Are  citizens  voluntarily  giving  their 
money  to  support  such  teaching? 

Who  is  responsible  for  the  appointment  and 
retention  of  this  class  of  professors  on  our 
Faculties?  As  a  rule,  the  president  of  an  in¬ 
stitution  selects  the  teachers.  I  know  not  who 
does  this  at  Ohio  State  University. 

Is  it  true  in  this  country,  as  it  has  been 
especially  in  Germany,  that,  on  the  ground  of 
“academic  freedom,”  a  man  may  proclaim 
his  atheism  or  any  other  doctrine,  however 
damnable  to  morals  and  to  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion,  and  be  secure  from  public  criticism? 
Can  any  moral  or  religious  qualifications  be 
demanded  of  one  before  he  is  permitted  to 
teach  in  our  public  institutions? 

No  President  of  the  United  States  or  pub¬ 
lic  official  in  a  high  place  has,  so  far  as  I  know, 

86 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


dared  to  proclaim  that  he  is  an  atheist.  I  take 
it  that  our  national  motto  (“In  God  we  trust”) 
is  not  entirely  void  of  meaning  to  the  majority 
of  our  people. 

Think  of  the  spectacle,  if  you  can,  of  a 
teacher,  a  product  of  a  modern  university,  who 
has  been  dogmatically  taught  the  theory  of 
evolution  as  a  science,  who  has  sat  at  the  feet 
of  professors  who  have  presented  a  one-sided 
view  of  the  theory,  but  who  have  failed  to 
present  any  objections  to  it.  Think  of  this 
dogmatic  fledgeling,  with  his  brand-new  Ph.D., 
standing  before  a  class  of  boys  and  girls  pour¬ 
ing  his  dogmatic  teaching  on  evolution  into 
their  minds,  which  are  like  empty  buckets 
ready  to  receive  whatever  is  poured  into  them 
by  a  teacher.  This  theory,  this  naturalistic 
philosophy  of  the  universe,  is  being  insin¬ 
uated  into  the  minds  of  our  young  people 
by  dogmatic  teachers,  who  know  not  what 
they  do. 

One  who  had  been  a  student  in  Ohio  State 
University  said  to  me:  “Three-fourths  of  the 
professors  in  the  university  are  atheists,  and 
the  other  fourth  are  agnostics  and  Christians.’ ’ 
This  I  took  to  be  an  exaggeration,  but  it  in¬ 
dicated  a  certain  condition.  Another  who  had 
been  a  student  there  said  that  a  considerable 
number  of  the  professors  in  that  institution 

were  agnostics  and  atheists.  If  such  impres- 

87 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


sions  were  made  on  these  two  students  of  good 
ability,  what  must  have  been  the  impression 
left  upon  the  thousands  of  students  in  atten¬ 
dance  ? 

I  have  noticed  recently  in  print  that  this 
institution  is  proposing  to  give  special  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  A  good  house-cleaning 
would  be  a  great  help  to  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
workers. 

It  will  become  more  and  more  evident  as  I 
proceed  in  considering  the  answers  to  my  ques¬ 
tions  by  various  men  that  the  fundamental 
difficulty  in  our  educational  system  has  its 
center  in  our  greatest  educational  institutions. 
Not  that  the  heads  of  our  universities  are  in¬ 
tentionally  adverse  to  that  which  is  true  and 
good,  but  that  a  good  deal  of  the  teaching  is 
committed  to  those  who  do  not  wield  the  proper 
influence  to  mold  sterling  character.  The 
modern  rage  is  science  and  the  “scientific 
method,”  and  especially  evolution  (falsely  so 
called  in  most  cases)  running  through  the 
whole  curriculum.  In  chemistry  and  physics 
there  are  many  known  facts  and  some  theories, 
and  we  may  speak  of  these  as  branches  of 
physical  science.  In  biology  are  some  facts  and 
endless  theories,  all  of  which  are  claimed  by 
many  to  be  science.  The  theory  of  organic 
evolution  has  become  the  backbone  of  all  bio¬ 
logical  teaching,  and  the  false  impression  is 

88 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


made  by  those  who  teach  it  that  the  theory  is 
established  science.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  organic  evolution  is  only  a  necessary  part 
of  cosmic  evolution,  and  that  the  latter  tries  to 
account  for  conditions  in  all  times  and  all 
places  in  the  universe. 

Mr.  Darwin  began  organic  evolution  with  a 
few  forms  half-way  up  in  the  scale  of  organiza¬ 
tion,  such  as  are  found  in  the  primordial 
period.  But  he  had  no  logical  right  to  begin 
there  unless  he  projected  his  theory  backward 
in  time,  to  account  for  the  evolution  of  the 
forms  with  which  he  began.  It  is  admitted  by 
evolutionists  that  the  first  living  thing  must 
have  originated  by  evolution,  if  the  theory  is 
true. 

The  following  is  an  accepted  fact,  stated  by 
Chancellor  Jordan  and  other  biologists:  “All 
life  comes  from  life.”  But  the  theory  of 
evolution,  which,  as  science,  accepts  only  mat¬ 
ter  and  force  as  the  immediate  data  of  all 
things,  must  include  spontaneous  generation 
as  a  part  of  her  process.  They  were  the  only 
data  in  the  world  before  life  appeared,  and 
men  are  still  looking  to  “resident  forces”  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  life.  But  they  look 
in  vain. 

Jordan  and  Kellogg  say:  “Finally,  we  may 
refer  briefly  to  the  ‘grand  problem’  of  the  ori¬ 
gin  of  life  itself.  Any  treatment  of  this  ques- 

*  89 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


tion  is  bound  to  be  wholly  theoretical.  We  do 
not  know  a  single  positive  thing  about  it.” 

E.  D.  Cope  says:  “Failure  of  the  attempts 
to  demonstrate  spontaneous  generation,  if  con¬ 
tinued,  is  fatal  to  this  theory.” 

Professor  Tyndall’s  nearly  a  thousand  ex¬ 
periments  with  organic  infusion  led  him  to 
conclude  that  life  comes  only  from  life. 

Darwin  said:  “The  inquiry  as  to  how  life 
first  appeared  is  hopeless.” 

Professor  Conn  says:  “With  all  our  re¬ 
search,  the  essence  and  origin  of  life  has  thus 
far  eluded  our  grasp.” 

Again,  he  says  that  the  simplest  living 
thing  is  a  cell,  and  that  a  cell  is  not  simply  a 
chemical  compound,  protoplasm,  but  an  ex¬ 
tremely  complex  organism  of  “many  parts  act¬ 
ing  in  adjustment  to  each  other.  .  .  .  The  more 
it  is  studied,  the  more  complex  it  appears.  It 
acts  rather  as  a  machine.  ...  So  far  as  we 
know,  unorganized  protoplasm  does  not  exist. 
The  properties  of  life  seem  to  be  manifested  in 
nothing  simpler  than  the  organic  cell.” 

The  question  of  spontaneous  generation  is 
not  simply  chemical,  but  it  involves  the  pro¬ 
duction  also  of  a  very  complex  organism  in 
which  life  can  manifest  itself. 

The  theory  of  universal  evolution  necessarily 
includes  spontaneous  generation,  of  which  there 

is  no  evidence.  A  theory  which  must  assume 

90 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


an  impossibility  can  not  be  “science.”  This 
assumption  is  the  beginning-point  of  organic 
evolution. 

The  question  may  be  asked:  “Why  not  say 
that  God  created  the  first  living  thing?”  For 
God  to  have  done  this  would  have  been  a 
miracle,  a  supernatural  event,  and  science  deals 
only  with  natural  forces,  and  can  not  include 
a  miracle  as  a  part  of  her  process.  As  Haeckel 
rightly  says:  “To  admit  one  miracle  opens  the 
way  to  other  miracles.” 

This  all-inclusive  theory  of  scientific  evolu¬ 
tion,  as  it  is  claimed,  assumes  that  the  natural 
forces  at  its  command  are  the  only  forces  in 
the  universe,  and  it  claims  that  there  can  be 
no  manifestation  of  supernatural  power  other 
than  by  natural  processes.  The  assumption  that 
the  so-called  scientific  method  is  universal  can 
not  be  proved.  Science  can  not  grasp  all  the 
processes  of  the  universe.  The  theoretical  high¬ 
way  is  broken  in  pieces  by  many  impassable 
gulfs. 

Chancellor  Jordan,  in  answering  my  sixth 
question,  says:  “The  teaching  of  evolution 
is  only  common  sense  and  common  experience 
expanded.”  As  to  what  is  meant  by  “common 
sense”  in  teaching  the  subject  of  evolution  in 
our  public  schools  I  have  already  expressed 
my  opinion.  As  to  whether  the  “common 

sense”  of  teachers  in  our  secondary  schools,  for 

91 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


example,  will  enable  teachers  honestly  and  fully 
to  present  the  subject  or  not,  and  whether  these 
schools  are  proper  places  or  not,  may  well  claim 
Chancellor  Jordan’s  earnest  consideration. 

Is  it  not  true  that  what  the  pupils  would 
get  would  be  a  few  facts  on  one  side  of  the 
subject,  presented  in  a  dogmatic  way,  and 
practically  nothing  on  the  other  side  ?  The 
result  of  this  kind  of  teaching  is  inevitable — 
harmful,  useless,  unscientific.  There  is 
enough  real  science  of  practical  importance 
to  occupy  all  the  time  of  pupils  in  secondary 
schools. 

The  teaching  of  evolution  ought,  in  my 
opinion,  to  be  excluded  (by  law,  if  necessary) 
from  all  public  schools  below  the  universities, 
and  in  the  colleges  and  universities  it  ought  to 
be  taught  honestly  and  fully  to  the  select  few 
who  have  the  ability  to  comprehend  it  in  all 
its  bearings. 

Chancellor  Jordan  says:  4 ‘The  teaching  of 
evolution  is  only  common  sense  and  common 
experience  expanded.”  Organic  evolution,  if 
it  has  taken  place,  extends  back  over  millions 
of  years,  while  our  “expanded  experience,” 
at  most,  reaches  back  but  a  few  years.  When 
we  see  a  living  horse,  we  are  absolutely  certain 
that  it  had  two  living  parents.  And,  by  our 
various  experiences  with  animals  and  plants, 

we  conclude  that  life  comes  only  from  life. 

92 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


This  rule  applied  to  the  ancestors  of  living 
things  would  lead  us  into  an  endless  past,  and 
compel  us  to  state  that  living  things  always 
existed  in  the  world.  But  we  know  that  life 
had  a  beginning  here.  The  statement  that 
living  things  always  existed  is  squarely  con¬ 
tradicted,  if  our  experience  could  reach  back  to 
the  first  living  thing.  Our  ‘‘experience  ex¬ 
panded’  *  knows  nothing  of  the  origin  of  a 
single  species  of  the  probable  millions  that 
exist  and  have  existed  in  past  ages.  Nor  does 
this  “experience”  reveal  to  us  any  method  by 
which  nature  could  render  cross-sterile  closely 
related  varieties  so  that  they  could  become 
millions  of  species.  An  impassable  barrier  has 
been  erected  at  this  point  which  no  plausible 
theory  explains.  Varieties  under  domestica¬ 
tion,  preserved  by  man’s  selection,  would  soon 
cease  to  be  varieties  in  a  state  of  nature  where 
all  would  be  free  to  mingle.  Man  propagates 
varieties  by  selecting  and  separating,  but  na¬ 
ture  obliterates  varieties  by  mingling.  Under 
domestication  there  is  no  struggle  for  existence, 
and,  consequently,  the  law  of  natural  selection 
does  not  apply.  In  a  word,  I  may  say  that  our 
“experience  expanded”  does  not  extend  far 
enough  along  the  road  of  evolution  to  help  it 
over  the  most  difficult  points.  “Experience 
expanded”  by  imagination  will  serve  the 
purpose. 


93 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Question  Seven. 

Question  7 — To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of  which  you 
are  chancellor? 

Answer — “To  the  same  extent  as  the  doctrine  of 
gravitation.  The  living  questions  relate  to  the  details, 
on  many  of  which,  for  lack  of  complete  evidence,  there 
is  much  difference  of  opinion.  In  both  cases  any  other 
theory  consistent  with  the  facts  would  be  given  equal 
credence.  All  theory  is  provisional.  But  one  could  no 
more  return  to  the  idea  of  the  separate  creation  of 
species  than  to  the  old  idea  of  planets  steered  through 
space  in  the  hands  of  angels.  ’* 

No  one  doubts  the  truth  of  the  laws  of 
gravitation.  Every  teacher  accepts  them  as 
firmly  established.  And  so  every  teacher  is 
to  accept  and  teach  organic  evolution  as  estab¬ 
lished  beyond  question.  No  further  proof  of 
it  as  a  fact  is  needed.  The  case  has  been 
closed  in  its  favor,  the  verdict  has  been 
delivered,  and  there  is  no  possibility  of  a  suc¬ 
cessful  appeal.  The  professor  is  not  called 
upon  to  prove  the  fact  of  evolution.  He  has 
only  to  build  upon  the  sure  foundation,  and  to 
go  forward  with  no  uncertain  footsteps ! 
Shades  of  Sir  William  Dawson,  who  spent 
much  of  his  life  in  combating  this  theory,  which 
is  being  widely  heralded  as  an  established  fact! 
And  what  shall  we  say  of  Agassiz,  America’s 
leading  zoologist;  of  George  Frederick  Wright, 

a  geologist  of  world-wide  reputation,  and  of 

94 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


a  large  number  of  others  who  maintained  that 
evolution  is  only  a  theory  unestablished? 

It  is  inevitable,  I  take  it,  that  when  ‘  ‘  Evolu¬ 
tion  and  Animal  Life,”  by  Jordan  and  Kellogg, 
is  used  as  a  text,  and  I  presume  it  is  in  Stan¬ 
ford  University,  that  the  students  accept  the 
theory  that  it  advocates.  Above,  it  is  said: 
“Any  other  theory  consistent  wfith  the  facts 
would  be  given  credence.”  This  is  a  fair 
statement,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  could  it  be 
expected  that  students  in  classes  would  be 
able  to  present  any  other  theory?  Is  it  not  a 
fact  that  the  student  in  a  case  of  this  kind  is 
at  the  mercy  of  the  teacher?  A  theory  that 
rests  on  so  sure  a  foundation  as  the  laws  of 
gravitation  is  certain  to  be  more  or  less  dog¬ 
matically  taught.  The  evidence  in  favor  of  it 
is  magnified,  and  that  opposed  is  touched  upon 
lightly  or  omitted. 

The  theory  of  organic  evolution,  as  is  ad¬ 
mitted  by  evolutionists,  necessarily  includes  the 
origin  of  the  first  living  thing.  Without  life 
he  has  nothing  with  which  to  begin  the  living 
process.  As  to  spontaneous  generation, 
Chancellor  Jordan  says:  “We  do  not  know  a 
single  positive  thing  about  it.  .  .  .  All  life 
comes  from  life.  .  .  .  The  biologist  can  not  ad¬ 
mit  spontaneous  generation  in  the  face  of  the 
scientific  evidence  he  has.  On  the  other  hand, 

lie  has  difficulty  in  understanding  how  life 

95 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


could  have  originated  in  any  other  way 
than  through  some  transformation  from  in¬ 
organic  matter.7’  He  does  not  understand  it 
in  that  way.  Naturalism  being  his  sole 
method,  he  must  accept  spontaneous  genera¬ 
tion. 

“It  is  not  clear  that  science  has  been  really 
advanced  through  the  conception  of  the  essen¬ 
tial  unity  of  organic  and  cosmic  evolution.7 7 
Certainly  the  claims  of  organic  evolution, 
which  is  posing  under  the  name  of  “the  scien¬ 
tific  method,”  would  be  much  relieved  if  it 
did  not  have  to  begin  in  the  mineral  world. 
Mr.  Darwin  cut  various  Gordian  knots  when 
he  began  half-way  up  in  the  animal  kingdom 
and  assumed  spontaneous  generation  and  the 
evolution  of  sub-kingdoms,  etc.  There  is  no 
proof  as  to  how  a  star-fish,  a  snail,  a  spider  or 
a  fish  came  into  existence  by  the  process  of 
evolution.  None  as  to  the  origin  of  sex,  wings 
of  various  kinds,  legs,  eyes  of  numerous  kinds, 
or  of  any  other  of  the  various  organs  of  the 
body.  Feeling,  instincts,  mind  with  its  many 
powers — these  are  all  assumed  to  have  origi¬ 
nated  by  the  “scientific  process”  of  evolution. 
We  are  told  that  the  fact  that  these  things 
have  been  brought  about  in  this  way  is  as  cer¬ 
tain  as  the  laws  of  gravitation.  This  being 
true,  how  is  the  pressure  of  “ science ”  to  be 
resisted  ? 


96 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Evolution  is  a  theory  that  assumes  every¬ 
thing  of  importance.  That  this  theory,  which 
is  broken  into  a  thousand  fragments  by  im¬ 
passable  gulfs  that  cross  its  pathway,  should 
be  called  “scientific”  is  beyond  same  thinking. 

In  organic  evolution  there  must  be  an  un¬ 
broken  line  of  generic  continuity  among  organ¬ 
isms,  so  that  any  living  form,  if  we  knew  its 
ancestors,  could  be  traced  back  to  the  first 
living  thing  with  which  the  process  began. 

The  genetic  continuity  that  is  necessary  in 
the  physical  organisms  of  the  organic  world 
is  equally  necessary  in  the  psychological  world, 
but  we  have  no  evidence  of  its  existence  there. 

All  human  history  in  which  the  actions  of 
many  millions  of  human  minds  have  had  their 
part  as,  to  a  large  extent,  independent  units, 
is  not  an  illustration  of  evolution.  There  is 
a  lack  of  continuity  in  the  thinking  of  differ¬ 
ent  minds.  The  cotton-gin  was  the  invention 
of  Whitney,  the  sewing-machine  of  Howe,  the 
steamboat  of  Fulton,  the  telegraph  of  Morse, 
and  the  telephone  of  Bell.  There  was  no  con¬ 
tinuity  of  thought  conveyed  by  other  people  to 
each  of  these  inventors,  but  their  inventions 
represent  their  own  original,  individual 
thoughts  in  each  case.  It  is  true  that  in  each 
case  the  inventor  used  the  results  of  the  labor 
of  other  minds,  but  his  invention  involved 

original  material  not  contributed  by  other 
7  97 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


minds.  And  so  the  millions  of  inventions  fail 
to  show  continuity  in  the  mental  world.  The 
freedom  of  the  human  will  to  choose  and  to  exe¬ 
cute  forbids  mental  continuity.  The  human 
mind  would  be  a  mere  machine  if  its  actions 
were  all  dictated  by  others.  Its  supremacy 
rests  upon  the  fact  that  it  is  free. 

Men  talk  about  evolution  in  human  history. 
History  is  made  by  the  mind  of  man.  To  be 
sure,  there  has  been  progress,  but  this  progress 
can  not  properly  be  called  evolution,  because  of 
the  lack  of  genetic  continuity.  The  progress  all 
along  the  line  is  due  to  new,  original  thoughts 
of  individual  minds — thoughts  which  have  not 
been  contributed  by  others,  and,  consequently, 
are  beyond  the  scope  of  evolution.  Human 
history  is  not  a  fit  field  for  the  word  “  evolu¬ 
tion.  ”  When  thus  used,  it  forsakes  the  mean¬ 
ing  that  it  has  in  organic  evolution.  The  word 
“history”  alone  will  express  the  thought. 

I  presume  that  the  word  “evolution”  is 
used,  in  history  and  other  fields,  because  it 
claims  to  involve  natural  causes  only.  A  per¬ 
fect  “philosophy  of  history”  would  involve  at 
least  a  knowledge  of  the  complete  psychology 
of  the  principal  characters  involved. 

No  prophet  could  have  foretold  the  action 
of  the  principal  minds  that  precipitated  the  re¬ 
cent  World  War.  None  could  foresee  the  re¬ 
sults  of  the  mental  operations  of  the  German 

98 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Emperor — self-centered,  vain,  overly  ambitious, 
with  greatly  magnified  views  as  to  his  place  in 
the  world’s  affairs.  With  a  mind  half  insane, 
thirsting  for  dominion,  believing  in  the  al- 
mightiness  of  the  machine  of  death  and  con¬ 
quest  that  he  had  put  in  motion,  he  stood  upon 
the  portico  of  the  Potsdam  Palace  and  told 
the  people  that  the  war  would  be  short,  that 
his  victorious  hosts  would  return  with  flying 
banners  when  the  leaves  fell  in  the  coming 
autumn.  (<Gott  und  Ich  ”  according  to  his 
views,  were  allies  in  supreme  deviltry  against 
the  human  race.  But  God  wouldn’t  stand  for 
it. 

The  causes  of  the  conflict  no  one  could  see. 
The  real  causes  were  human  minds  whose  ac¬ 
tions  had,  as  much  as  possible,  been  kept  con¬ 
cealed.  The  world  had  been  grossly  deceived. 
But  the  world  gradually  opened  its  eyes  to  the 
fact  that  a  great  nation  had  for  a  half-century 
given  its  thought  and  its  substance  to  prepare 
for  slaughter  and  world-wide  conquest.  The 
forces  of  death  were  made  supreme.  Some 
writers  maintained,  shortly  before  the  war, 
that  another  great  war  could  never  occur.  No 
process  of  evolution,  properly  speaking,  can 
be  seen  by  which  the  conflict  was  brought 
about.  Many  individual,  independent  minds 
were  at  work  contributing  to  the  results  that 
followed. 


99 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


That  there  are  certain  things  that  help  to 
determine  results  is  well  understood.  That 
* ‘ righteousness  exalteth  a  nation’ ’  no  one  can 
doubt.  That  “the  nations  which  forget  God 
shall  be  turned  into  Sheol”  is  evident. 

The  seer  may  rely  with  the  certainty  of  the 
laws  of  gravitation  on  justice,  mercy,  truth  and 
love  as  producing  beneficent  results  in  human 
society,  and  with  equal  certainty  upon  the  fact 
that  injustice,  cruelty,  lying  and  hatred  will 
bear  their  fruits  of  destruction. 

“Do  unto  others  as  you  would  have  them 
do  unto  you,”  and  “love  your  neighbor  as 
yourself,”  are  as  certain  in  their  results,  when 
applied,  as  are  the  laws  of  gravitation.  They 
are  causes  in  the  moral,  spiritual  world  which 
revolutionize  human  society. 

But  it  is  not  evolution,  in  any  proper  sense, 
by  which  principles  of  ethics  produce  their  re¬ 
sults,  for  the  evident  reason  that  they  are  not 
working  on  machines,  but  upon  free  human  be¬ 
ings  who  can  choose  their  course  of  action  in 
every  case. 

Men  have  become  so  wedded  to  the  word 
“evolution”  that  they  drag  it  into  every  field, 
and  make  it  do  service.  In  most  cases,  I  think, 
it  means  only  the  changes  that  take  place  due 
to  lapse  of  time. 

Chancellor  Jordan  says:  “But  one  could  no 

more  return  to  the  idea  of  the  separate  crea- 

100 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


tion  of  species  than  to  the  old  idea  of  planets 
steered  through  space  in  the  hands  of 
angels.’ ’  In  other  words,  we  are  absolutely  cer¬ 
tain  that  each  of  the  millions  of  species  has 
been  derived  by  evolution.  This  is  said  in  the 
face  of  the  fact  that  not  a  single  species  is 
known  to  have  been  evolved.  Darwin’s  son, 
writing  the  biography  of  his  father,  says: 
“  We  can  not  prove  that  a  single  species  has 
changed.  No  example  can  be  given.  Only 
varieties  that  are  cross-fertile  with  each  other 
have  been  produced,  but  the  theory  of  evolu¬ 
tion  demands  varieties  that  were  cross-sterile 
with  each  other — a  thing  that  is  not  known 
even  under  domestication.”  The  millions,  as 
claimed,  of  species  are  cross-sterile,  so  that,  if 
they  cross  at  all,  the  offspring  can  not  propa¬ 
gate  their  kind.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
nature  has  any  means  of  producing  cross¬ 
sterility  among  varieties  of  the  same  species, 
and  yet  cross-sterility  must  have  been  pro¬ 
duced  millions  of  times,  if  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  be  true. 

If  it  be  granted,  by  way  of  argument,  that 
fishes  in  caves  lost  their  eyes  by  disuse,  or  birds 
lost  the  use  of  their  wings  for  flight  by  disuse, 
or  horses  their  toes  till  but  one  on  each  foot 
remains,  this  is  no  proof  as  to  how  the  eyes 
of  vertebrates,  the  wings  of  birds  or  the  toes 

of  horses  originated  de  novo,  beginning  with 

101 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


nothing.  The  supreme  question  of  evolution  is 
that  of  origins  all  along  the  line  from  the 
imaginary  primordial  cell,  derived  by  spon¬ 
taneous  generation,  to  the  body  and  mind  of 
man.  The  theory  is  purely  imaginary.  It  is, 
so  far  as  I  can  see,  the  only  complete  naturalis¬ 
tic  theory  that  can  be  offered.  It  rests  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  only  forces  in  the  uni¬ 
verse  are  the  forces  of  nature  with  which 
science  deals  and  produces  her  results.  This 
leads  to  the  question  of  the  supernatural,  which 
I  will  not  consider  at  present. 

In  the  Christian-Evangdist  of  Sept.  16, 
1920,  page  935,  is  a  statement  by  Charles  F. 
Hutsler,  minister  of  the  Christian  Church  of 
Palo  Alto,  Calif.  It  is  as  follows: 

“We  have  organized  a  Christian  fraternity  among 
our  Christian  Church  students  in  Stanford,  which  has 
proved  a  very  potent  factor  in  conserving  their  spiritual 
interests  during  their  university  career.  I  learned  after 
only  a  few  weeks’  labor  here  that  many  of  our  Chris¬ 
tian  men  and  women  are  not  only  lost  to  our  own 
brotherhood,  but  also  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  when  they 
come  under  the  influence  of  this  institution.  Thus  it 
was  imperative  that  we  have  some  special  agency  which 
would  save  them  from  such  a  fate.” 

The  above  statement  needs  no  comment. 
The  fact  that  such  a  condition  is  possible  in  a 
great  university  is  a  sad  comment  on  the  effi¬ 
ciency  of  Christian  civilization.  The  university 

102 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


is  supposed  to  exist  for  the  good  of  the  people, 
but  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  intelligence  of 
Christian  fathers  and  mothers  who  will  subject 
their  sons  and  daughters  to  such  unfavorable 
influences?  The  atmosphere  of  an  institution, 
due  frequently  to  the  dominating  influence  of 
one  or  a  few  minds,  has  much  to  do  with  the 
character  of  students.  One  healthy  skunk  can 
perfume  a  large  area. 

But  I  am  not  writing  especially  about  Stan¬ 
ford  University.  What  is  said  of  that  may,  I 
feel  sure,  be  said  of  a  large  number  of  our 
leading  universities.  Some  who  have  answered 
my  questions  have  indicated  that  the  teaching 
of  evolution,  as  often  taught,  has  had  a  bane¬ 
ful  influence  on  Christian  teaching. 


103 


VII. 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONNAIRE 

By  Charles  W.  Eliot,  President  Emeritus 
of  Harvard  University,  and  by  Arthur 
T.  Hadley,  Ex-President  of  Yale. 

CHARLES  W.  ELIOT,  president  emeritus 
of  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass., 
answers  my  questionnaire  as  follows  (I  omit 
the  preliminary  statement)  : 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “Evolution  does  not  seem  to  me 
to  be  a  science  of  creation,  or  of  anything  else. 
It  is  merely  a  scientific  hypothesis.  As  such, 
it  has  been  of  great  service  in  the  progress 
of  biological  science  during  the  past  sixty 
years.  ’  ’ 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “Le  Conte’s  definition  of  evolu¬ 
tion  is  correct,  but  only  as  a  statement  of  a 
changing  or  developing  theory.” 

104 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process,  be¬ 
ginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing  as 
a  continuous  stream  through  the  ages,  includ¬ 
ing  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not 
the  one  universal  process?  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “To  the  first  and  second  questions 
the  answer  is  yes.  To  the  third  question  the 
answer  is  that  the  evolution  hypothesis  is  not 
a  science  at  all.  ’ ? 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “Evolution  is  only  a  theory/’ 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attributed 
to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “One  who  believes  evolution  to  be 
a  universal  process  which  describes  God’s 
habitual  mode  of  action  will  have  difficulty  in 
accepting  as  facts  or  correct  narratives  of  ac¬ 
tual  events  the  Gospel  accounts  of  the  miracles 
attributed  to  Christ.” 

I  fully  agree  with  this  statement.  Cosmic, 
theistic  evolution  has  no  place  for  miracles. 
It  repudiates  Christ  by  denying  His  miracles. 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of  evo¬ 
lution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  commonly 

105 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testament?  In 
what  way  must  this  teaching  be  modified? 

Answer — “Evolution  can  not  be  taught  ex¬ 
cept  to  the  older  pupils  in  the  public  schools. 
To  apprehend  the  hypothesis  needs  good  mental 
faculties  and  a  certain  maturity  of  mind.  I 
should  think  that  good  teaching  of  the  evolu¬ 
tionary  hypothesis  to  competent  children  in  the 
public  schools  might  diminish,  in  the  recipients 
of  the  instruction,  their  faith  in  the  ordinary 
Catholic  or  evangelical  Protestant  interpreta¬ 
tions  of  the  New  Testament/ ’ 

The  great  majority  of  those  who  have  an¬ 
swered  my  questions  agree  that  evolution  is  not 
a  science,  but  only  a  theory.  It  is  so  wide  and 
complex  and  difficult  in  its  details  that  only 
the  few  have  the  training  and  mental  equip¬ 
ment  to  give  it  the  proper  consideration.  I 
do  not  believe  that  evolution  ought  to  be  taught 
even  “to  the  older  pupils  in  the  public 
schools.”  I  am  sure  that  the  teachers  who 
would  teach  the  subject  are  not  fully  pre¬ 
pared  to  present  both  sides  as  should  be  done 
when  taught.  I  believe  that  the  teaching  of 
evolution  is  mostly  dogmatic,  and  that  the  re¬ 
sult  of  teaching  it  is  a  new  crop  of  dogmatists. 
I  am  aware  that  there  are  those  who  hold  that 
the  subject  of  evolution  greatly  expands  the 
mind.  I  think  that,  as  taught,  it  warps  the 

mind  and  closes  it  against  much  truth. 

106 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


President  Eliot  expresses  the  opinion  “that 
good  teaching  of  the  evolutionary  hypothesis 
to  competent  children  in  the  public  schools” 
might  diminish  their  faith  in  the  commonly 
accepted  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures 
among  Catholics  and  Protestants. 

The  great  question  with  regard  to  teach¬ 
ing  this  theory  is  as  to  its  effects  on  the  funda¬ 
mentals  of  Christianity.  The  hope  of  civiliza¬ 
tion  is  founded  on  the  teaching  of  Christ,  as 
presented  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  common¬ 
ly  believed  by  Christian  people  that  Christian¬ 
ity  is  the  only  universal  religion  and  that  Christ 
is  the  only  perfect  example.  The  great  effort 
of  the  Christian  world  is  to  proclaim  Christ 
to  the  many  millions  of  people  in  the  heathen 
world.  The  theory  of  evolution  as  proclaimed 
by  Darwin,  in  which  chance  is  the  only  fac¬ 
tor,  does  not  support  the  Christian  religion. 
Mr.  Darwin  said:  “Science  and  religion  must 
each  run  its  course;  I  am  not  responsible  if 
the  meeting-point  be  far  away.”  Missionaries 
are  not  being  sent  by  Christian  people  to  the 
heathen  world  to  proclaim  Darwinism  with 
the  hope  of  thus  redeeming  the  heathen  from 
their  degradation.  Darwinism  has  no  sys¬ 
tem  of  ethics.  Its  great  principle — “natural 
selection,”  “survival  of  the  fittest” — is  one 
of  absolute  selfishness,  which  defies  the  princi¬ 
ple  of  universal  love. 


107 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Evolution  can  not  account  for  conscience, 
for  the  use  of  that  “imperious  word  ought,’ ’ 
for  self-consciousness,  for  abstract  ideas,  for 
man’s  belief  in  one  supreme  God,  for  his  be¬ 
lief  in  a  spiritual  world  and  a  future  life.  In 
the  psychological  world,  in  the  ethical  and  re¬ 
ligious  worlds,  evolution  is  helpless  to  account 
for  the  present  order  of  things,  because  it 
places  all  things  on  the  basis  of  naturalism, 
which  is  the  only  scientific  basis  on  which  it 
can  exist.  While  there  may  be  differences  of 
interpretation,  and  in  many  cases  wrong  in¬ 
terpretations,  of  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  there 
is  substantial  agreement  among  all  the  creeds 
of  Christendom  as  to  the  Fatherhood  of  God, 
the  deity  of  Christ  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible.  Even  the  theistic  evolution,  that  con¬ 
fines  God  solely  to  the  method  of  naturalism, 
uproots  these  beliefs,  which  have  been  stamped 
on  the  human  mind  for  thousands  of  years, 
have  determined  the  course  of  Christian 
civilization,  have  been  a  refuge  in  times  of 
trouble,  and  have  been  the  guiding  star  that 
has  led  the  best  of  the  race  in  its  forward 
march. 

Beecher  said  to  Ingersoll  on  one  occasion: 
“As  I  was  passing  along  the  street,  I  saw  a 
large,  strong  man  attack  a  poor  cripple, 
who  was  crossing  the  street  on  crutches.  He 
knocked  him  down  in  the  mud  and  broke  his 

108 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


crutches.  What  ought  to  be  done  to  that 
man?”  Ingersoll  answered  that  he  ought  to 
be  severely  dealt  with.  ‘‘Thou  art  the  man!” 
exclaimed  Beecher.  “You  would  take  away 
the  Bible,  on  which  the  human  race  has  been 
hobbling  as  on  crutches,  and  give  nothing  in 
return.”  And  so  the  theory  of  evolution,  with 
its  countless  assumptions,  eliminates  Chris¬ 
tianity,  which  has  supported  tottering  human¬ 
ity,  and  gives  nothing  in  return.  This  theory 
is  cold  and  intellectual,  and  can  never  satisfy 
the  heart  longings  of  humanity. 

The  life  of  Christ,  a  perfect  living  being, 
full  of  wisdom  and  truth,  who  “went  about 
doing  good,”  whose  life  touched  humanity  in 
all  its  phases,  whose  guiding  motto  was  love  to 
God  and  love  to  man,  is  worth  more  to  the  race 
than  all  the  theories  invented  by  man  since  the 
foundation  of  the  world.  The  great  question 
is,  Wliat  shall  guide  the  ignorant,  struggling 
race  along  its  devious  path? 

•  The  educational  system  in  the  universities 
of  Japan  is  fruitful  in  agnostics  and  atheists. 
The  so-called  modern  thought,  propagated  by 
infidel  teachers,  is  in  the  ascendency,  and  will 
increase  the  passion  for  suicide  that  prevails 
among  many  educated  Japanese. 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 

which  you  were  president? 

109 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Answer — “I  imagine  that  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution  is  accepted  and  taught  by  all  the 
teachers  and  students  of  science  in  Harvard 
University,  although  different  minds  entertain 
very  different  views  of  the  meaning  and 
value  of  the  hypothesis.  It  is  ten  years,  how¬ 
ever,  since  I  resigned  the  presidency  of  Har¬ 
vard,  so  that  I  can  not  speak  confidently  about 
the  present  attitude  of  the  university  as  a 
whole  towards  evolution,  because  the  theory 
itself,  or  the  statement  of  it,  changes  rapidly 
with  the  advance  of  knowledge  and  the  in¬ 
coming  of  new  visions  and  expressions  con¬ 
cerning  it.” 

In  the  above,  President  Eliot  expresses  the 
opinion  that  the  teachers  and  the  students  of 
science  in  Harvard  generally  accept  the  hy¬ 
pothesis  of  evolution,  but  that  “  different  minds 
entertain  very  different  views  of  the  meaning 
and  value  of  the  hypothesis.”  I  think  that 
this  expresses  the  attitude  of  the  minds  of 
most  people  who  have  considered  the  subject, 
both  as  to  its  truth  and  its  value.  There  is 
no  general  agreement  as  to  what  evolution  is, 
but  there  is  a  vague  idea  in  the  minds  of 
many  that  it  is  the  one  thing  in  recent  times 
that  must  he  accepted,  because  it  is  the  fad  of 
the  times.  Whisky  was,  for  a  good  while, 
considered  the  universal  remedy  for  all  ills 

of  the  flesh,  and  the  word  “evolution”  has 

110 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


been  introduced  into  the  psychological  phar¬ 
macopoeia,  and  is  regarded  by  many  as 
a  universal  panacea  for  all  philosophical 
troubles. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  inefficiency  of  the 
average  college  graduate  in  teaching,  Transyl¬ 
vania  College  had,  several  years  ago,  a  gradu¬ 
ate  of  Harvard  as  a  teacher  in  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Science.  This  excellent  young  man 
felt  it  his  duty  on  various  occasions  to  teach 
the  doctrine  of  evolution.  He  regarded  the 
doctrine  as  true  because  he  had  been  taught 
it  in  the  university.  He  would  close  his  re¬ 
marks  by  saying:  “I  don’t  know  much  about 
it;  you  need  not  tell  anybody.”  I  take  it  that 
his  knowledge  of  the  subject  was  a  fair  aver¬ 
age  of  that  of  the  college  graduate  generally. 


Pres,  (now  ex-Pres.)  Arthur  T.  Hadley’s 
Answers  to  Questionnaire. 

Yale  University. 

New  Haven,  Conn.,  June  14,  1920. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — Evolution  means  orderly 
growth.  It  is  a  process,  not  a  science.  The 
word  “evolution”  is  sometimes  used  to  mean 
a  theory  that  all  the  phenomena  in  the  world 
are  marked  by  orderly  growth,  as  distinct 
from  sudden  changes;  but  even  this  is  rather 

a  stretch  of  the  meaning  of  the  word.  In  the 

ill 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


light  of  these  sentences,  I  can  answer  your 
questions. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “No.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  by  means  of  resi¬ 
dent  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “Yes,  as  far  as  subhead  (1)  and 
subhead  (2)  are  concerned.  Subhead  (3) 
appears  to  limit  the  definition  more  than 
general  usage  would  approve.  Webster’s 
dictionary  does  better.  ’  ’ 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing 
as  a  continuous  stream  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 
one  universal  process  ?  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “It  is  quite  possible  that  it  may 
be  a  universal  process;  but  it  has  not  been 
proved,  and  the  proof  is  likely  to  be  very  diffi¬ 
cult.  It  is  not  a  universal  science,  because  it 
is  not  a  science  at  all.” 

It  is  evident,  I  think,  that  the  above 
question,  involving  cosmic  evolution  and  in¬ 
cluding  organic  evolution  as  a  logical  part  of 

112 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


it,  must  remain  a  hypothesis  for  lack  of  proof. 
But  is  not  this  the  hypothesis  that  the  world 
is  asked  to  accept  as  a  substitute  for  a  large 
part  of  the  Christian  religion? 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science, 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “Already  answered  at  the  begin¬ 
ning.  ’  ’ 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “Evolution,  or  orderly  growth, 
is  the  antithesis  of  miracles  or  sudden  arrests 
of  natural  laws.  The  development  of  a 
belief  in  evolution,  therefore,  makes  people 
more  critical  of  the  testimony  in  support  of 
the  miracles.  But  beware  of  assuming  that 
there  is  any  such  thing  as  a  scientific  doctrine 
of  evolution.  Different  theories  of  evolution 
have  been  held  during  the  last  twenty-five 
hundred  years,  and  it  would  be  premature  to 
characterize  any  one  of  them  as  a  scientific 
doctrine.  ’ ’ 

“Evolution  or  orderly  growth  is  the  antith¬ 
esis  of  miracles  or  sudden  arrest  of  natural 
laws,”  says  President  Hadley. 

It  is  evident  that  the  burden  of  proof  is 
upon  him  who  claims  that  an  event  has 
occurred  that  can  not  be  attributed  to  natural 
forces;  as,  for  example,  the  turning  of  water 
8  113 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


into  wine,  the  sudden  healing  of  a  leper  or  the 
raising  of  the  dead.  Such  events  are  spoken 
of  as  miracles,  and  are  regarded  as  super¬ 
natural  events.  The  things  of  the  existence  of 
which  we  are  certain  are  the  different  kinds 
of  matter,  the  forces  of  nature  and  some  psy¬ 
chological  phenomena.  Chemism,  heat,  light, 
electricity,  magnetism,  gravitation,  are  some 
of  the  forces  that  exist.  The  forces  do  me¬ 
chanical  work  on  matter,  giving  it  various 
kinds  of  motions.  Without  the  action  of  force 
the  matter  of  the  universe  would  remain  sta¬ 
tionary.  Forces  produce  results  by  acting  in 
conflict  with  each  other,  the  stronger  force 
overcoming  the  weaker.  We  take  it  for 
granted  here  that  theism  is  true,  that  God 
reigns,  and  that  all  that  He  does  harmonizes 
everywhere  and  at  all  times.  In  some  sense 
it  may  be  accepted  that  God  works  according 
to  fixed  laws,  both  in  the  physical  and  spiritual 
worlds. 

Do  not,  however,  let  us  put  God  in  a 
strait  jacket  by  an  improper  conception  of  law . 
Laws  in  the  physical  world  are  simply  the 
methods  according  to  which  the  forces  pro¬ 
duce  their  results.  In  chemistry  the  results 
produced  by  the  chemical  forces  that  reside  in 
the  atoms  themselves  can,  under  known  condi¬ 
tions,  be  foretold  with  great  precision.  The 

chemist  is  certain  that  when  two  volumes  of 

114 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


hydrogen  and  one  volume  of  oxygen  are 
mixed  and  caused  to  unite  by  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  a  spark  that  water  will  be  the  product 
of  the  union.  He  is  certain  that  they  always 
unite  in  the  same  proportion  to  form  water; 
in  other  words,  that  water  has  a  fixed  composi¬ 
tion. 

Pass  a  current  of  electricity  through  the 
water,  and  it  is  separated  into  its  two  constit¬ 
uent  elements — hydrogen  and  oxygen.  The 
electricity  has  undone  the  work  of  the  chemi¬ 
cal  force  by  shaking  apart  the  united  atoms 
of  the  two  elements.  It  does  this  according 
to  laws  of  electricity,  as  we  are  accustomed 
to  say.  The  law  as  to  the  action  of  hy¬ 
drogen  and  oxygen  upon  each  other  and  the 
law  as  to  the  effect  of  electricity  on  water 
are  equally  fixed  and  unchangeable.  One 
law  annihilated  another  laiv.  Electricity 
overcame  chemism.  Was  it  a  miracle? 
Verily  not. 

The  growing  plant  overcomes,  decomposes, 
the  chemical  compounds,  thus  overcoming  the 
chemical  forces  of  the  substances  from  which 
it  obtains  food  to  build  up  its  tissues.  It  is 
compelled  to  contend  with  and  to  overcome 
the  inorganic  forces  of  nature  in  order  that  it 
may  live.  The  animal  decomposes  plant  sub¬ 
stances,  reorganizes  them,  and  thus  builds  up 

its  own  tissues — and  all  according  to  so-called 

115 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


laws.  The  fact  is  that  nature’s  processes  are 
carried  on  by  perpetual  conflict  of  opposing 
forces,  each  acting  according  to  its  own 
methods.  She  does  not  do  her  work  by  har¬ 
mony  of  forces,  but  by  conflict,  in  which  the 
strongest  gain  the  victory. 

The  forces  of  nature  are  the  tools  with 
which  man  carries  out  his  infinite  purposes. 
He  is  obliged,  when  he  uses  a  force  to  do 
work,  to  take  notice  of  the  ways  in  which  it 
will  act.  He  does  not  try  to  run  a  steam- 
engine  with  electricity  nor  a  dynamo  directly 
by  steam. 

Great  fires  sometimes  rage  in  the  forests 
of  the  West,  destroying  millions  of  cords  of 
wrood,  and  the  immense  quantity  of  heat  is 
soon  radiated  into  space.  That  is  all  that 
nature  can  do  with  the  heat.  The  mind  of 
man  can  cause  that  wood  to  generate  heat 
that  can  be  applied  to  countless  machines, 
manufacture  all  useful  articles,  ply  ocean 
steamers,  move  a  thousand  locomotives  through 
the  land,  carrying  freight  and  passengers;  in 
other  words,  the  human  mind  can  cause  a 
given  quantity  of  heat  to  perform  endless 
kinds  of  work  that  nature  fails  to  do.  Man’s 
mind  is  supreme  in  directing  the  forces  of 
nature.  It  determines  the  work  to  be  done, 
and  directs  the  various  forces  into  channels 

where  they  do  the  desired  work. 

110 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


President  Hadley  says:  “Evolution  or 
orderly  growth  is  the  antithesis  of  miracles 
or  sudden  arrests  of  natural  laws.”  We  have 
seen  that  in  the  case  of  hydrogen  and  oxygen 
to  form  water  according  to  a  chemical  law  the 
decomposition  of  water  is  effected  by  elec¬ 
tricity  according  to  its  laws.  In  this  case, 
has  not  the  electricity  arrested  the  “natural 
law”  of  chemistry  that  caused  the  elements 
to  unite  in  a  definite  proportion  and  that  holds 
them  in  union  as  water?  Heat  disintegrates 
practically  all  the  compounds  formed  in  the 
organic  world.  In  doing  this,  does  not  heat, 
a  force ,  acting  according  to  “natural  law,” 
overcome  a  great  number  of  “natural  laws,” 
forces,  by  which  the  organic  compounds  have 
been  formed,  and  by  which  they  continue 
their  existence?  What  is  meant  by  the  “sud¬ 
den  arrest  of  natural  laws”  in  performing 
miracles  ? 

All  chemical  action,  all  physical  results,  all 
processes  in  the  living  world,  all  human  activ¬ 
ity  directed  by  mind,  involves  the  overcoming 
of  certain  forces  or  resistances,  acting  in  their 
respective  spheres,  by  superior  forces.  The 
combustion  of  coal  under  a  boiler,  involving 
the  action  of  chemical  forces,  produces  steam, 
which,  by  its  expansive  force,  produces  me¬ 
chanical  motion  of  the  piston  of  the  engine; 

this  imparts  mechanical  motion  to  the  dynamo, 

117 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


which  converts  its  mechanical  motion  into 
magnetism  and  a  current  of  electricity,  and 
the  current  gives  rise  to  light  for  illuminating 
purposes;  it  runs  motors  that  do  the  mechani¬ 
cal  work  of  driving  cars  and  machinery  of 
many  kinds;  it  reduces  metals  from  ores,  thus 
doing  chemical  work ;  magnetizes  great  arti¬ 
ficial  magnets,  that  lift  many  tons,  or  it  may 
be  converted  into  heat  for  cooking  and  heat¬ 
ing  purposes.  Instead  of  starting  with  fuel 
under  the  boiler,  we  might  have  begun  with  a 
falling  weight,  as  is  done  at  Niagara  Falls, 
to  obtain  these  various  results.  The  correla¬ 
tion  of  forces  indicates  that  all  the  forces  in 
the  inorganic  world  are  manifestations  of  one 
force.  The  infinite  variety  of  results  that  may 
be  wrought  by  this  force  in  its  many  forms 
and  under  different  names  ought  to  make  us 
slow  to  try  to  put  a  limit  to  the  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  force  in  the  affairs  of  the  world. 
We  are  in  no  condition  to  declare  that  this 
or  that  is  not  in  accord  with  the  “laws  of 
nature, 9  ’  since  we  are  not  in  a  position  to 
determine  what  the  possibilities  are.  The 
miracles  and  the  revelations  of  the  Bible  are 
no  more  wonderful  than  the  natural  proc¬ 
esses  that  are  going  on  everywhere  in 
nature,  but  naturalism  seeks  to  eliminate 
them  because  she  can  not  bring  them  within 
her  process. 


118 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


As  already  indicated,  in  considering  the 
correlation  of  forces,  we  deal  with  the  same 
force  from  beginning  to  end,  but  it  differs  so 
much  in  its  successive  stages  that  we  give  it 
different  names,  and  the  methods  of  its  action, 
or  its  laws,  differ  greatly  from  each  other. 
Involved  in  the  series  are  the  laws  of  falling 
bodies,  laws  of  chemical  action,  laws  of  heat, 
laws  of  light,  laws  of  electricity,  laws  of  mag¬ 
netism,  laws  of  mechanics.  Here,  then,  we 
have  a  series  of  laws ,  methods  of  action  of 
forces,  of  the  same  force  under  different  mani¬ 
festations  and  known  by  different  names. 

It  is  under  the  control  of  mind  that  cor¬ 
relations  of  force  are  especially  made  to  mani¬ 
fest  themselves.  The  world,  until  recent  times, 
sat  in  ignorance  of  most  of  these  facts.  Mind 
is  the  dominant  power  over  force  in  its  various 
manifestations.  Force  is  the  tool  with  which 
mind  works  its  purposes  in  the  world. 

The  relation  between  mind  and  force  is 
of  supreme  importance.  Mind  is  more  than 
mechanical  force.  There  is  no  genetic  rela¬ 
tion  between  any  psychological  manifestation 
and  the  forces  of  the  inorganic  world.  Feel¬ 
ing,  reason,  instinct,  conscience,  self-conscious¬ 
ness,  universal  love  and  all  mental  powers  are 
entirely  beyond  the  region  of  the  various 
manifestations  of  force  in  the  inorganic  world. 

These  powers  demand  for  their  beginning  the 

119 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


exercise  of  an  intelligent  force.  Evolution  has 
made  absolute  failure  to  prove  the  origin  of 
any  mental  power.  She  must  call  to  her  aid 
the  power  that  can  perform  a  miracle,  though 
she  refuses  to  call  that  power  “God.”  As  a 
scientific  process,  evolution  must  stand  alone. 

Man  is  continually  destroying  the  works 
of  nature  which  natural  forces,  acting  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  methods,  laws,  have  produced.  His 
mind  compels  his  body  to  undo  much  of  na¬ 
ture’s  handiwork.  With  humanity  in  the 
saddle,  with  mind  everywhere  in  action,  with 
freedom  of  the  will,  there  is  no  predetermined 
goal  for  human  events,  no  fixed  channel  in 
which  history  runs.  There  can  be  none  while 
man  is  a  free  moral  agent. 

Man  habitually  prevents  the  action  of  the 
forces  of  nature,  so  that  these  forces,  or  laws, 
as  they  are  called,  do  not  produce  the  effect 
that  they  would  otherwise  produce.  His 
mind  makes  him  supreme  in  managing  the 
forces  of  nature,  so  that  new  and  original 
work  is  done. 

Yet,  in  accomplishing  his  purpose,  man 
must  continually  recognize  that  each  force 
acts  in  certain  definite  ways,  that  we  call  laws. 

President  Hadley  speaks  of  miracles  as  in¬ 
volving  “sudden  arrests  of  natural  laws.” 

It  seems  to  me  that  he  uses  the  word  as  a  sub- 

120 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


stitute  for  forces.  The  laws  of  nature  are  not 
forces,  but  the  methods  according  to  which 
the  forces  act.  Man,  by  controlling  the  forces 
of  nature,  performs  what  I  call  human  mira¬ 
cles.  He  obtains  his  results  by  causing  cer¬ 
tain  forces  to  overcome  other  forces.  For  ex¬ 
ample,  he  makes  a  locomotive  by  causing  nat¬ 
ural  forces  to  act  upon  different  kinds  of 
matter,  thus  overcoming  forces  by  the  use 
of  stronger  forces.  If  God  were  to  make  a 
locomotive  as  man  makes  it,  we  would  call  it 
a  miracle. 

The  fundamental  principle  involved  in  per¬ 
forming  a  miracle  is,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  the 
overcoming  of  certain  forces  by  means  of 
stronger  forces  directed  by  God  Himself  in  a 
supernatural  way.  A  miracle  does  not  involve 
a  conflict  with  nature  any  more  than  actually 
exists  among  the  forces  of  nature.  Every¬ 
where  these  forces  are  doing  their  work  by 
conflicting  with  each  other.  We  strand  our¬ 
selves  in  thinking  by  the  use  of  the  word 
“law,”  a  word  that  is  thought  to  represent 
that  which  is  immutable  in  nature.  Now,  in 
an  important  sense,  as  I  have  shown,  law,  the 
action  of  the  forces,  is  not  immutable.  Under 
the  direction  of  mind  the  various  forces  are 
plastic,  being  guided  into  a  great  number  of 
channels.  The  great  mistake  that  universal 

evolution  makes  is  its  claim  that  the  forces 

121 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


manifested  in  the  inorganic  world  are  the  sum 
total  of  forces  that  exist  in  the  universe,  and 
that,  consequently,  out  of  their  action  on  mat¬ 
ter  sprang  all  things. 

There  must  be  a  power  above  the  physical 
powers  of  nature  which  could  have  done  the 
supernatural  work  that  evidently  has  been 
done,  and  this  power  the  Christian  calls  God. 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  common¬ 
ly  accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testament? 
In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be  modified? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  It  will  be  good.  It  will  com¬ 
pel  people  to  lay  more  stress  on  the  moral  and 
spiritual  elements.” 

President  Hadley  has  already  said  that 
“evolution,  or  orderly  growth,  is  the  antith¬ 
esis  of  miracles.”  In  other  words,  the 
theory  of  evolution  eliminates  miracles  from 
the  New  Testament,  and  this  “will  be  good,” 
because  “it  will  compel  people  to  lay  more 
stress  on  the  moral  and  spiritual  elements.” 
This  is  a  fair  statement  of  a  prevalent  view; 
but,  according  to  the  views  of  those  who  ac¬ 
cept  the  “deity  of  Christ,”  which  includes  the 
overwhelming  mass  of  the  Catholic  and  Protes¬ 
tant  worlds,  the  above  view  repudiates  Christ 
by  denying  His  miracles.  It  makes  Him 
only  an  erring  man;  denies  the  miracle  of  the 

122 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


resurrection  of  His  body ;  makes  impossible 
His  commandments  to  His  apostles,  given 
after  His  resurrection,  to  “go  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea¬ 
ture  ;”  makes  impossible  His  ascension,  because 
He  had  not  been  raised  from  the  dead,  and 
impossible  a  “kingdom  of  heaven,”  over  which 
He  is  to  be  the  “eternal  King.” 

Of  course  the  ethics  of  the  New  Testament, 
“the  moral  and  the  spiritual  element,”  are 
of  vast  importance.  Even  Haeckel  approves 
the  Golden  Rule  and  the  law  of  love  as  the 
best  ethics  for  his  monism,  but  he  denies  the 
existence  of  God,  repudiates  Christ  and  the 
Bible,  and  places  belief  in  a  future  life  as  an 
unsupported  dogma. 

The  “moral  and  the  spiritual  element”  in 
Christianity  may  well  be  stressed  much  more 
than  it  has  been — this  ought  to  be  done;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  anything  that  lessens  the 
supremacy  of  Christ  by  denying  the  truth  of 
any  part  of  His  teaching,  as  set  forth  in  the 
New  Testament,  brings  Him  into  disrepute. 
When  men’s  faith  in  Christ  as  the  “Lamb  of 
God  who  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world” 
fails,  then  there  can  be  no  kingdom  of  heaven 
wherein  dwelleth  righteousness.  The  question 
with  regard  to  Christ  is,  not  what  is  most 
important  in  His  teaching  and  work,  but  have 

the  writers  of  the  Gospels  given  correct  ac- 

123 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


counts  of  what  He  said  and  did?  To  elimi¬ 
nate  from  the  records  all  the  accounts  of 
miracles,  as  evolution  does,  is  to  weaken  the 
value  of  what  remains.  Do  unto  others  as 
you  would  have  them  do  unto  you,  is  a  state¬ 
ment  of  vast  practical  importance.  Men  can 
not  see,  however,  that  this  Golden  Rule  is 
necessarily  a  revelation  from  God.  But  when 
they  saw  Jesus  perform  miracles,  they  said: 
“No  man  can  do  the  works  that  thou  doest 
unless  God  be  with  him.”  The  elimination 
of  miracles  by  the  teaching  of  evolution  can 
have  but  a  destructive  effect  on  the  essential 
doctrines  of  Christianity.  This  teaching  also 
denies  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  held  by 
Christians. 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — “We  show  the  facts  in  evolution, 
in  biology  and  history  as  fully  as  we  can.  We 
try  not  to  teach  this,  or  anything  else,  as  a 
doctrine.” 

I  do  not  see  how  the  word  “evolution,” 
as  applied  to  the  material  organic  world,  in 
which  genetic  continuity  is  a  necessary  part 
of  the  process,  can  be  applied  to  human  his¬ 
tory  which  grows  out  of  free  mental  proc¬ 
esses  of  many  minds  where  continuity  does 

not  exist.  We  may,  of  course,  think  of  the 

124 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


changes  that  take  place  in  the  mental  atti* 
tilde  of  nations  as  evolution,  but,  when  we  do 
this,  we  give  a  new  meaning  to  the  word.  It 
lacks  mental  continuity.  The  burning  desire 
to  find  a  word  that  includes  all  the  physical 
and  psychological  changes  in  the  universe  has 
led  to  the  use  of  the  word  “  evolution. ’  ’  But 
it  has  a  variety  of  meanings. 

President  Hadley’s  statement  that  “evolu¬ 
tion  means  orderly  growth”  seems  to  be 
very  general,  and  it  might  include  all  changes 
that  take  place  in  time.  The  meaning  of  the 
word  has  been  definitely  fixed  for  the  organic 
world  by  Darwin’s  “Origin  of  Species.” 

“We  show  the  facts  in  evolution,  in 
biology  and  history  as  fully  as  we  can,” 
writes  President  Hadley.  This  is  a  fair  state¬ 
ment.  The  facts  ought  to  be  shown,  and  both 
sides  shown  as  fully  as  possible. 

I  know  not  what  the  teaching  of  this  sub¬ 
ject  is  in  Yale  University,  so  what  I  say 
bears  upon  the  teaching  of  the  subject  in 
general. 

Several  things  are  involved  in  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  this,  as  of  other  subjects. 

First,  “academic  freedom,”  which  per¬ 
mits  the  teacher  to  teach  anything  he  pleases 
concerning  the  subject  which  he  is  called  upon 
to  teach.  This  freedom  is  supposed  to  be 

democratic,  and  under  it  the  teacher  may  ex- 

125 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


press  the  most  diverse  views,  sometimes  hurt¬ 
ful  to  morals  and  religion,  with  the  assurance 
that  he  will  not  be  called  to  account.  It 
would  be  well  for  some  of  the  academic  author¬ 
ities  to  remember  that  even  the  United  States, 
where  freedom  is  supposed  to  reign,  has  cer¬ 
tain  laws  by  which  she  can  condemn  and  ship 
Bolsheviks  to  Russia.  The  authorities  of  a 
university  ought  to  feel  equally  free  to  deal 
with  its  Bolshevik  teachers.  From  what  I 
know  of  conditions,  I  feel  sure  that  Ernest 
Haeckel  would  be  undisturbed  as  a  teacher 
in  the  chairs  of  some  of  our  universities. 

Second,  the  attitude  of  the  teacher  towards 
his  subject.  It  is  very  generally  agreed  that 
evolution  is  only  a  theory  or  hypothesis,  and 
not  a  science.  It  is  theoretically  held  to  be 
provisional,  while  the  impression  that  is  made 
on  the  mind  of  the  pupil  is  that  it  is  estab¬ 
lished  science.  The  teacher  of  this  subject 
may  be  an  atheist,  an  agnostic,  a  pantheist  or 
a  Christian.  Probably  he  may  be  generally 
one  of  the  first  three.  His  views  are  crystal¬ 
lized  on  the  subject  of  evolution.  His  pupils 
know  in  advance  what  his  views  are.  Like 
the  attorney  that  he  is,  he  is  armed  with 
authorities  to  make  clear  his  side  of  the  case. 
In  fact,  to  him,  there  is  no  other  side  of  the 
case.  He  cites  the  books  of  great  authors 

who  agree  with  him,  refers  his  students  to 

126 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


these  books,  which  abound  in  the  library 
(books  of  his  own  selection),  and  indicates 
that  his  views  represent  the  universal  consen¬ 
sus  of  the  opinion  of  modern  scholarship.  He 
either  ignores  the  other  side  or  refers  to  it  in 
a  slighting  way;  says  that  they  have  written 
no  books  on  the  subject  of  any  scientific  value; 
says  that  they  are  old  fogies,  who  have  failed 
to  catch  “the  modern  vision,”  and  they  are 
destitute  of  the  “new  thought.”  The  few 
volumes  against  evolution  are  buried  beneath 
the  hundreds  which  favor  it,  and  these  few 
are  having  a  real  “struggle  for  existence.” 

Third,  the  pupils  who  receive  the  instruc¬ 
tion.  As  a  rule,  the  subject  of  evolution  is 
new  to  them.  They  are  ready  to  be  guided  by 
the  teacher.  They  listen  with  receptive  minds. 
They  are  empty  vessels.  They  receive  what 
is  put  into  them.  The  personality  of  the 
teacher,  and  frequently  his  emphatic  and  dog¬ 
matic  way  of  teaching,  do  the  work.  There 
can  be  but  one  result  of  the  ordinary  way  of 
teaching  this  subject,  and  that  is  a  new  crop 
of  dogmatic  evolutionists,  who  know  little  of 
one  side  of  the  subject  and  nothing  of  the 
other. 

When  taught  in  its  fullness,  it  is  a  philoso¬ 
phy  of  the  workings  of  the  universe.  Even 
when  called  theistic  evolution,  as  a  universal 

system  of  naturalism,  it  eliminates  the  super- 

127 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


natural  by  denying  all  miracles,  destroys  the 
Bible  as  a  book  of  revealed  authority,  and 
leaves  the  Christian  religion  stranded  on  the 
sands  of  naturalism. 

The  prevailing  methods  used  in  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  evolution  very  generally  result  in  the 
Christian  faith  of  the  pupil  being  destroyed, 
his  head  being  crammed  with  dogmatic  misin¬ 
formation  on  the  subject,  and  his  being  led 
to  accept  the  “theory”  of  evolution  as 
“science He  is  informed  that  unless  he  does 
so  accept  it  he  will  be  classed  with  the  “old 
fogies/’  and  with  those  that  are  “out-of-date.” 

Such  methods  are  so  unfair  to  the  pupil,  to 
the  public  and  to  the  Christian  religion,  the 
wonder  is  that  we  stand  for  them.  Shall  we 
not  insist,  if  the  subject  be  discussed  at  all, 
that  both  sides  be  presented  by  competent 
teachers?  Else,  is  there  not  grave  danger  that 
Christianity  may  be  doomed  with  the  coming 
generations  ? 


128 


VIII. 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONNAIRE 

By  Dr.  John  J.  Coss,  Columbia  University; 
Prof.  R.  M.  Wenley,  University  of  Michi¬ 
gan  ;  Professor  Nachtricht,  University  of 
Minnesota;  Pres.  Frank  J.  Goodnow,  of 
Johns  Hopkins  University;  Pres.  Wil¬ 
liam  S.  CuRRELL,  BY  PROF.  A.  C.  MOORE, 
University  of  South  Carolina. 

Columbia  University,  Department  op 
Philosophy. 

-New  York,  June  24,  1920. 

My  Dear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

President  Butler  has  asked  me  to  reply  to 
your  letter  of  June  14. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “No;  it  has  nothing  to  say  on 
creation.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 

resident  forces,”  correct? 

9  129 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Answer — “No;  progressive  usually  indi¬ 
cates  a  judgment  as  to  good  or  bad.  Evolu¬ 
tion  does  not  concern  itself  with  these  terms.’ ’ 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing 
as  a  continuous  stream  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place,  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 
one  universal  process  ?  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  There  are  doubtless  links,  but 
each  kind  of  organism,  or  custom,  should  be 
separately  studied.  Any  such  generalization 
as  Spencer  made  is  probably  incorrect.” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “As  a  theory  covering  in  the 
most  acceptable  fashion  natural  phenomena 
which  are  subject  to  observation.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “Many  evolutionists  would  tend 
to  explain  the  miracles  in  a  naturalistic  man¬ 
ner,  though  the  connection  between  the  two 
is  not  a  necessary  one.” 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 

evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  corn- 

130 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


monly  accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment? 

Answer — “The  religious  inspirational  side 
should  be  stressed  rather  than  the  static,  non¬ 
developing  conception.  ’  ’ 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — “Biological  evolution  is  accepted, 
and  the  view  that  society  changes  in  an  un¬ 
derstandable  way  is  generally  held.” 

May  I  call  your  attention  to  two  books 
with  which  you  may  be  already  thoroughly 
acquainted?  One  is  M.  M.  Metcalfe’s  ‘Or¬ 
ganic  Evolution,’  and  the  other  is  Jordan  and 
Kellogg’s  ‘Evolution  and  Animal  Life.’ 

Very  truly  yours, 

John  J.  Coss,  Executive  Officer. 

I  have  already  expressed  my  opinions  in 
what  I  have  written  that  will  serve  as  com¬ 
ments  on  the  answers  of  Dr.  Coss.  In  his 
answer  to  (3)  it  seems  that  he  does  not  regard 
evolution  as  a  universal  process.  In  answer 
to  (4)  he  accepts  evolution  “as  a  theory  cover¬ 
ing  in  the  most  acceptable  fashion  natural 
phenomena  that  are  subject  to  observation.” 
This  being  true,  the  process  could  not  be 
universal.  I  take  it  that  his  answer  to  (5) 

eliminates  the  miracles  and  the  so-called  doc- 

131 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


trinal  parts  from  the  New  Testament.  An¬ 
swer  to  (7)  shows  that  evolution  is  accepted 
in  biology  and  history.  Evolution  is  the  only 
theory  which  naturalism,  with  any  plausibility, 
can  advance.  The  great  question  is:  Does  it 
necessarily  eliminate  supernaturalism?  I  do 
not  see  how  “society  changes  in  an  under¬ 
standable  way”  by  evolution,  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  word  is  used  in  biology.  The  latter 
has  to  do  with  physical  forms,  between  which 
must  exist  genetic  continuity,  and  the  former 
with  the  psychology  of  free  individuals  where 
no  such  continuity  is  possible. 


University  of  Michigan. 

Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Prof.  R.  M.  Wenley  answers  questionnaire 
on  the  request  of  President  Hutchins. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — ‘  *  This  seems  to  me  to  be  quite 
misleading.  ’  ’ 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “May  be  sufficient  as  to  the  how; 
says  nothing  as  to  the  why,  and  omits  the  all- 
important  problem  of  the  unity  of  continuity 

132 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


and  change.  How  can  such  a  unity  be 
thought  ?  ’  ’ 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing 
in  a  continuous  stream  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place,  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 
one  universal  process  ?  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “We  are  in  no  position  to  affirm 
so  on  available  evidence.  ” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “I  prefer  to  regard  it  as  a 
hypothesis,  in  the  strict  logical  sense  of  the 
term.  ’  ’ 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “In  my  opinion  this  question  is 
so  framed  as  to  be  incapable  of  reply.  I  had 
always  understood  that  the  New  Testament 
miracles  were  attributed  to  the  historical 
J  esus.  ’ ’ 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of  evo¬ 
lution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment? 


133 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Answer — “I  can  not  see  it  will  have  any 
effect  other  than  the  teaching  of  any  scientific 
method  must  have.  And  this  does  not  affect 
the  New  Testament,  but  merely  certain  theo¬ 
logical  interpretations  of  it — about  which  there 
seem  to  be  very  wide  variations  of  view 
among  theologians  themselves.” 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  University  of 
Michigan  ? 

Answer — ‘‘Representatives  of  the  biological 
sciences  assume  it  precisely  as  representatives 
of  the  physical  sciences  assume  the  Newton- 
Laplace-Maxwell  hypothesis.  ’  ’ 

Professor  Wenley’s  answers  to  Questions  1, 
2,  3  and  4  are,  I  think,  correct.  I  fail  to  un¬ 
derstand  why  he  can  not  answer  5.  There  is 
certainly  enough  of  the  “historical  Jesus”  in 
the  Gospels  to  enable  one  to  answer  as  to 
Christ’s  miracles.  The  question  involves  the 
fundamental  difficulty  that  evolution  has  raised 
with  regard  to  Christ.  I  can  not  agree  with 
his  answer  to  6.  In  his  answer  to  4  he  re¬ 
gards  evolution  “as  a  hypothesis  in  the  strict 
logical  sense  of  the  term.”  In  6  he  puts  the 
teaching  of  this  “hypothesis”  on  the  basis  of 
a  “scientific  method,”  thus  clothing  it  with 
the  dignity  of  the  word  “science.”  Teachers 
talk  of  evolution  as  a  hypothesis  and  then  talk 

134 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


of  it  as  a  fact  as  well  established  as  the  laws 
of  gravitation.  He  says  that  teachers  of  “the 
biological  sciences  assume  it  precisely  as  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  physical  sciences  assume  the 
Newton-Laplace-Maxwell  hypothesis.  ’ ’  They  do 
assume  it,  and  there’s  the  pity  of  it,  and  make 
it  the  backbone  of  the  “science”  of  evolution. 

Question  6  involves  the  effects  of  this  teach¬ 
ing  on  the  commonly  accepted  teaching  of 
the  New  Testament.  It  is  true  that  all  sciences 
have  more  or  less  hypothesis  connected  with 
them,  but  in  none  of  them  does  a  hypothesis 
so  dominate  the  whole  subject  as  does  that  of 
evolution.  Soon  after  Darwin’s  “Origin  of 
Species”  appeared,  theologians  were  quick  to 
recognize  the  fact  that  the  hypothesis  of  evolu¬ 
tion  affected  the  religion  of  the  Bible  in  a  way 
that  no  science  had  done  up  to  that  time.  A 
theory  that  derives  man  from  brute  ancestors 
by  way  of  descent  physically  and  mentally 
forced  itself  upon  the  consideration  of  Chris¬ 
tian  people.  This  hypothesis,  evolution,  un¬ 
verified  and  unverifiable,  has  been  forced  be¬ 
fore  the  world  as  science,  and  many  people 
have  become  alarmed,  and  said,  “We  must 
conform  our  teaching  to  science when,  in 
fact,  they  could,  at  most,  only  conform  to  a 
theory . 

Professor  Wenley  says  that  evolution  “does 

not  affect  the  New  Testament,  but  merely  cer- 

135 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


tain  theological  interpretations  of  it,”  and  that 
theologians  differ  as  to  interpretations.  They 
are  agreed  as  to  the  one  God,  the  Father  of 
all  men,  as  to  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  to 
the  existence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  to  the  in¬ 
spiration  of  the  Bible  and  the  miracles  of  the 
Bible.  Evolution,  depending  upon  chance,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Darwin,  has  no  place  for  God,  in¬ 
spiration  or  miracles — it  puts  all  on  the  basis 
of  naturalism,  which  is  the  only  scientific  basis 
on  which  it  can  be  placed. 


University  of  Minnesota. 

Pres.  Marion  Le  Roy  Burton,  of  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Minnesota,  by  Professor  Machtricht. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “Not  good  because  terms  used 
require  definition.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “No.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing 
as  a  continuous  stream  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place,  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 

136 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


one  universal  process  ?  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “Depends  on  what  you  are  aim¬ 
ing  at.  Too  comprehensive  for  the  original 
line  of  thought.” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  Theory.  ’  ’ 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — 4  ‘  On  certain  assumptions*,  yes. 
On  certain  assumptions,  no.” 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  ?  In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be 
modified  ? 

Answer — “Properly  taught,  it  should  not 
conflict  with  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  This 
can  not  be  said  of  the  New  Testament.” 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — “All  the  biologists  believe  in 
evolution.  Some  differences  of  opinion  on 
details.” 

Professor  Nachtricht  evidently  does  not 

accept  the  New  Testament  as  correct  history. 

137 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Johns  Hopkins  University. 

President’s  Office. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  Aug.  13,  1920. 

My  Dear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

I  am  enclosing  your  questionnaire  of  July 
8,  answered  by  one  of  our  professors,  who  is 
particularly  qualified  to  make  the  replies  re¬ 
quested.  I  am,  very  truly  yours, 

Frank  J.  Goodnow. 

My  Letter,  with  Comments  and  Answers 
by  President  Goodnow7 ’s  Representative. 

uDear  Sir: — I  have  been  making  inquiry 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  reliable  informa¬ 
tion  as  to  the  status  of  the  subject  of  Dar¬ 
winism  or  any  other  doctrine  of  evolution  in 
our  educational  system.  A  number  of  the 
superintendents  of  public  instruction  and 
presidents  of  normal  schools  have  written  to 
me  on  the  subject.  From  their  answers  I  in¬ 
fer  that  Darwinism,  or  some  theory  of  evolu¬ 
tion,  is  commonly  accepted  and  taught  in 
practically  all  of  our  high  schools,  normal 
schools,  colleges  and  universities.  There  does 
not,  however,  seem  to  be  agreement  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  ‘evolution.’  For  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  a  correct  definition, 
especially,  I  write  to  you  and  a  number  of 
others.  ’  ’ 


138 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Comment  by  the  Johns  Hopkins  Professor: 
“The  writer  seems  to  use  the  words  4 evolu¬ 
tion  *  and  ‘organic  evolution’  as  interchange¬ 
able.  They  are  very  different  in  scope.  Or¬ 
ganic  evolution  is  the  process  by  which  one 
organism  undergoes  modification  and  gives 
rise  to  an  organism  possessing  other  features, 
ultimately  a  different  species.” 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “No.  Evolution  is  a  process,  not 
a  science.  The  phrase  is  not  a  definition,  but 
a  personal  point  of  view.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  Evolution  involves  progressive 
change,  though  not  necessarily  continuous  nor 
always  one  of  advancement  in  the  scale  of 
being.  Many  of  the  laws  governing  the  proc¬ 
ess  are  obscure,  while  No.  3  is  still  more  open 
to  question.  It  is  not  well  to  make  one’s  defi¬ 
nition  include  too  many  hypotheses.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process,  be¬ 
ginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing,  as 
a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages,  includ¬ 
ing  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take  place 

in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 

139 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


one  universal  process,  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

There  is  no  answer  by  the  Professor  to  this 
question.  The  question  shows,  however,  that 
the  writer  is  mistaken  in  his  preliminary  re¬ 
mark  that  I  seem  to  use  the  words  “  evolu¬ 
tion  ”  and  “organic  evolution”  as  inter¬ 
changeable. 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “Evolution  is  a  process,  neither 
a  science  nor  a  theory.  The  view  that  organic 
beings  have  undergone  evolution  is  a  hypoth¬ 
esis  of  considerable  probability.  The  Dar¬ 
winian  form  of  this  hypothesis  needs  modifica¬ 
tion.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  There  is  no  conflict  in  truths 
from  different  realms.  The  discussion  that 
has  often  arisen  about  the  matter  seems 
to  have  beclouded  the  question  in  many 
cases.” 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  the  public  schools  on  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  teaching  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment?  In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be 
modified  ? 


140 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Answer — “It  depends  wholly  on  the 
breadth  of  view  and  clearness  of  thought  of 
the  person  discussing  the  matter.  I  suggest 
that  science  be  taught  as  science,  and  religion 
as  religion,  with  confidence  in  the  truth  of 
both.  An  occasional  discussion  of  their  rela¬ 
tions  is  desirable  if  given  by  a  competent 
man.  ’  * 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  I  suppose  all  students  of 
natural  sciences  view  evolution  of  organisms 
as  highly  probable.  We  are,  however,  keenly 
aware  of  the  existence  of  many  difficulties  in 
the  current  hypothesis.” 

Concerning  answer  No.  5.  Of  course, 
“there  is  no  conflict  in  truths  from  different 
realms.”  But  many  evolutionists  do  not 
admit  that  there  are  “different  realms.”  Ac¬ 
cording  to  them,  there  is  but  one  realm,  and 
it  all  belongs  to  evolution.  When  one  admits 
a  supernatural  realm  which  accords  with  the 
natural,  he  gets  into  the  region  of  revelation 
and  miracles,  which  can  not  be  accepted  as  a 
part  of  naturalism. 

His  first  sentence  in  answer  to  No.  6  in¬ 
volves  the  competency  of  the  teacher.  I  have 
already  expressed  the  opinion  that  in  most 

cases  the  teacher  is  not  competent  to  teach  the 

141 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


subject.  He  is  simply  an  advocate  of  one 
side  of  a  theory,  and  his  pupils  are  mostly 
passive  recipients  of  what  he  teaches  them. 
The  writer  suggests  that  “science  be  taught 
as  science,  and  religion  as  religion,  with  confi¬ 
dence  in  the  truth  of  both.”  This  is  good 
advice  to  those  who  can  clearly  distinguish 
the  two.  But  he  does  not  class  evolution  as 
science — it  is  only  a  “process.”  I  am  glad 
that  the  Professor  is  “keenly  aware  of  the 
existence  of  many  difficulties  in  the  current 
hypothesis. ’  ’ 

University  of  South  Carolina. 

(Columbia.) 

Pres.  William  S.  Currell  answers  by  A.  C. 
Moore,  Professor  of  Biology. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “Yes,  but  very  general.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means 
of  resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  Yes ;  more  specific.  ’  ’ 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process  be¬ 
ginning  in  the  organic  world  and  flowing,  as 
a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages,  includ¬ 
ing  all  physical  and  psychological  changes  that 

have  taken  place,  or  that  will  take  place  in  the 

142 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


future?  In  other  words,  is  not  evolution  the 
one  universal  process,  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “Evolution  is  a  universal  law, 
like  the  law  of  gravitation.  It  is  not  a  science.” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “A  law  of  development  beyond 
the  stage  of  theory.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  at¬ 
tributed  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “Not  inconsistent.” 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of  evolu¬ 
tion  in  the  public  schools  on  the  commonly 
accepted  teaching  of  the  New  Testament?  In 
what  way  must  this  teaching  be  modified? 

Answer — “It  will  make  students  more 
critical  and  will  make  for  more  careful  and 
exact  teaching  of  the  Bible.  Evolution  is  one 
fact  in  a  great  philosophy  of  life,  and  must 
be  made  to  fit  into  that  philosophy.” 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university 
of  which  you  are  president? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  Entirely.  ’  ’ 

In  answering  Question  1,  Professor  Moore 
accepts  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 

the  science  of  creation.”  He  answers  by  say- 

143 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


ing  “Yes,  but  very  general/ ’  He  accepts  it 
as  science.  In  answering  Question  3,  be  says: 
“It  is  not  a  science.’ ’  And  further  he  says: 
“Evolution  is  a  universal  law ,  like  the  law  of 
gravitation.”  I  understand  that  gravitation 
is  a  universal  force  and  that  the  mathematical 
laws  of  its  action  have  been  determined. 
Gravitation  is  not  a  law,  but  a  force.  Evolu¬ 
tion  is  a  very  complex  process  brought  about 
by  various  forces,  the  action  of  which  will  not 
admit  of  mathematical  expression.  I  presume 
that  Professor  Moore  means  that  evolution 
is  a  universal  process.  Being  universal  and 
resting  on  matter  and  the  forces  of  nature 
as  the  only  scientific  basis,  how  can  his 
answer  to  Question  5  be  explained  when  he 
says  that  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
is  “not  inconsistent”  with  the  miracles 
commonly  attributed  to  Jesus  Christ  in 
the  New  Testament?  If  all  events  come  under 
evolution,  a  scientific  process,  then  no  miracles 
could  occur,  for  they  demand  a  supernatural 
process. 

With  regard  to  Question  6.  I  ask  how  it 
can  be  that  “evolution  is  one  fact  in  a  great 
\ philosophy  of  life,  and  must  be  made  to  fit 
into  that  philosophy”?  Evolution,  according 
to  the  Professor,  is  universal,  and,  being  so, 
every  philosophy  of  life  must  be  made  to  fit 

into  it  as  a  part  of  it.  A  process  that  is  all- 

144 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


inclusive  can  not  be  forced  into  a  position 
where  it  becomes  only  a  part  of  the  process. 

The  answer  to  Question  7.  “Entirely” 
indicates  that  the  theory  is  accepted  and  taught 
to  the  fullest  extent.  He  says  that  evolution 
is  “beyond  the  stage  of  theory.”  The  con¬ 
clusion  is  certainly  very  satisfying  to  the  Pro¬ 
fessor.  I  am  curious  to  know  by  what  process 
of  reasoning  he  reconciles  universal  process  of 
evolution  with  miracles, 


10 


145 


IX. 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONNAIRE 

By  President  Campbell  by  Prof.  John  F. 
Bovard,  of  University  of  Oregon  ;  Pres. 
Robert  F.  Vinson  by  Prof.  D.  B.  Casteel, 
University  of  Texas  ;  Pres.  J.  Ross  Steven¬ 
son  by  W.  Brent  Greene,  Jr.,  Princeton 
Theological  Seminary;  Pres.  John  Grier 
Hibben  by  Prof.  E.  G.  Conklin,  Prince¬ 
ton  University;  Pres.  Lemuel  H.  Murlin, 
of  Boston  University. 

“University  of  Oregon. 

“Eugene,  Ore.,  Aug.  11,  1920. 
“My  Dear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

“I  am  forwarding  your  letter  to  Dr.  John 
F.  Bovard,  in  whose  department  the  question 
of  Darwinism  most  frequently  arises,  and 
who  can  answer  your  questions  specifically. 

“In  a  general  way  I  can  assure  you  that 
the  principles  of  Darwinism  are  accepted  in  the 
University  of  Oregon,  and  no  conflict  is  found 
between  them  and  Scriptural  teachings. 

“Karl  W.  Onthank,  Sec.” 

146 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Professor  Bovard  writes,  Sept.  19,  1920: 

11  My  Bear  Professor  Fair  hurst: 

“President  Campbell  has  referred  your  let¬ 
ter  to  me  for  reply.  I  am  glad  to  state  what 
I  know,  in  a  very  general  treatment. 

“The  specific  thing  that  you  may  be  reason¬ 
ably  sure  of  is  that  evolution  is  a  fact,  and 
not  a  theory.  There  are  a  great  many  theories 
as  to  how  evolution  came  about,  but,  as  I 
understand  it,  very  few  people  to-day  doubt 
the  fact  of  evolution.” 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “I  would  say  ‘Yes’  to  this 
question,  provided  you  apply  it  in  its  broadest 
phases,  and  do  not  make  it  too  specific.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “I  believe  that  Le  Conte’s  defini¬ 
tion  that  evolution  ‘is  continuous,  progressive 
change,  according  to  fixed  laws,  and  by  means 
of  resident  forces,’  is  a  very  fair  way  of 
stating  the  processes.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing, 
as  a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 

that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take  place 

147 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 
one  universal  process,  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “If  one  is  absolutely  consistent 
in  his  belief  in  evolution,  he  must  include 
the  inorganic  world  as  well  as  the  organic. 
In  other  words,  it  must  be  a  universal  proc¬ 
ess.’  ’ 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  as  a  theory? 

Answer — “Evolution  is  to  be  regarded  as 
a  fact,  and  not  as  a  theory.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  at¬ 
tributed  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament.” 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  teaching  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment?  In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be 
modified  ? 

Answer — “This  is  purely  a  matter  of  in¬ 
terpretation.  My  opinion  is  that  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  evolution  in  the  public  schools  is  a 
proper  thing  to  do,  just  as  it  is  the  proper 
thing  to  teach  any  facts  that  are  true.  The 

only  safeguard  I  would  care  to  use  would  be 

148 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


that  those  who  teach  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
know  what  they  are  teaching  about.’ ’ 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — “The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  ac¬ 
cepted  through  the  whole  university,  and  is 
taught  in  a  good  many  classes,  beginning  with 
literature  and  proceeding  through  the  whole 
curriculum  to  the  science  departments.  The 
various  departments  and  the  various  instruc¬ 
tors  differ,  however,  in  their  opinions  as  to 
how  evolution  came  about.” 

“Yours  very  truly, 

“John  P.  Bovard, 

“Dean  of  School  of  Physical  Education.” 

The  word  “evolution,”  since  Darwin’s 
“Origin  of  Species”  appeared,  has,  to  most 
people,  had  a  specific  meaning.  It  has  been 
applied  to  the  organic  \vorld.  The  principle 
of  natural  selection  would  derive  all  existing 
species  from  previous  species  by  an  unbroken 
continuity  of  genetic  descent.  I  think  that 
many  of  those  who  answer  my  questionnaire 
are  using  the  word  “evolution”  in  a  variety 
of  senses.  I  suppose  that  no  one  who  is  at  all 
acquainted  with  the  facts  doubts  that,  through 
a  long  period  of  time,  before  life  appeared, 

the  earth  was  undergoing  changes,  and  that 

149 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


during  the  long-past  geological  ages  and 
down  to  the  present  time  the  earth  has  been 
modified  in  infinite  ways ;  that  during  past 
time  countless  numbers  of  species  of  plants 
and  animals  have  come  and  gone,  and  that 
from  the  time  that  man  first  appeared  on  the 
earth  down  to  the  present  time  human  history 
has  been  undergoing  continual  change.  It 
seems  to  me  that  many  view  all  these  changes 
in  a  general  way,  and  call  them  evolution.  But 
the  whole  thing  can  not  properly  be  called 
evolution  in  the  sense  in  which  we  apply  the 
word  to  the  living  world.  In  the  latter,  gene¬ 
tic  continuity  is  absolutely  essential.  No  such 
continuity,  however,  can  be  traced  between 
the  processes  as  a  whole,  to  which  I  have  re¬ 
ferred.  There  is  no  known  continuity  from 
the  inorganic  world  into  the  world  of  life,  in¬ 
volving,  as  it  does,  spontaneous  generation ; 
there  is  no  known  continuity  into  the  psychic 
world  of  feeling  and  instincts,  no  continuity 
into  the  many  powers  of  human  mind. 

Professor  Bovard  indicates  that  evolution 
is  taught  throughout  the  college  curriculum. 
Does  he  mean  to  say  that  they  teach  the  same 
kind  of  evolution  in  Latin,  Greek,  literature, 
mathematics  and  philosophy  that  the  biologists 
teach,  in  which  genetic  continuity  must  exist? 
There  has  undoubtedly  been  development  and 

progress  in  all  of  these  subjects,  but  there  can 

150 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


not  have  been  continuity  in  the  sense  indi¬ 
cated.  It  seems  to  me  that  many  people  have 
become  obsessed  by  the  word  “evolution/’  so 
that  they  call  it  into  service  on  all  occasions. 

Professor  Bovard,  in  answering  Question 
3,  says  that  “if  one  is  consistent  in  his  belief 
in  evolution  he  must  include  the  inorganic 
world  as  well  as  the  organic.”  “In  other 
words,  it  must  be  a  universal  process.”  If 
it  is  a  universal  process,  it  is  God’s  only 
process.  If,  therefore,  miracles  can  be  per¬ 
formed,  they  must  be  done  as  a  part  of  evolu¬ 
tion,  which  is  claimed  to  be  a  scientific  proc¬ 
ess  by  means  of  “resident”  forces.  But  a 
miracle  can  not  be  classed  as  a  part  of  a  scien¬ 
tific  process. 

I  must  say  that  I  fail  to  see  the  advantages 
claimed  for  evolution  in  the  educational  world. 
I  think  it  has  served  a  large  purpose  in  mis¬ 
directing  the  efforts  of  the  human  mind. 
There  are  plenty  of  words  that  will  express  all 
the  changes  that  have  taken  place  without 
using  the  word  “evolution,”  which  has  been 
misapplied  in  many  cases. 

Professor  Bovard  says,  in  Question  6, 
that  those  who  teach  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  should  know  what  they  are  teaching.  If 
this  limitation  is  strictly  applied,  as  it  should 
be,  the  teaching  of  the  subject  will  rapidly 

disappear.  As  a  philosophy  of  creation,  based 

151 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


on  the  scientific  method,  taken  in  all  of  its  bear¬ 
ings,  it  is  the  most  complex  and  difficult  sub¬ 
ject  that  has  been  considered  by  the  human 
mind.  The  answers  to  my  questionnaire,  I 
think,  show  abundantly  how  poorly  the  sub¬ 
ject  is  understood  even  by  those  who  are  well 
educated.  It  is  not  a  subject  for  most  boys 
in  their  teens. 

Evolution,  in  its  universal  scope,  is  pro¬ 
foundly  religious.  It  proposes  to  account  for 
all  religions,  and,  among  them,  the  Christian 
religion,  on  the  basis  of  naturalism,  and,  in 
doing  this,  it  necessarily  eliminates  miracles, 
revelations,  and  all  that  is  supernatural.  It 
accepts  the  great  ethical  principles  of  the 
Bible  as  a  necessity,  for  it  has  no  ethics,  its 
fundamental  principle  being  that  of  pure 
selfishness.  It  has  the  ethics  of  “  tooth  and 
claw/’  the  ethics  that  “might  is  right,” 
which  was  the  fundamental  principle  of  Kaiser- 
ism,  and  which  God  repudiated. 

The  Christian  religion  is  the  greatest  asset 
of  the  race.  Under  its  guiding  influence  the 
human  race  has  made  its  greatest  progress. 
Yet  the  Bible  has  occupied  a  very  subordinate 
place  in  the  curricula  of  our  highest  institu¬ 
tions.  These  curricula  have  been  crowded 
with  Greek  and  Latin  for  the  purpose,  as  has 
been  claimed,  of  giving  a  liberal  education. 

Students  have  learned  to  read  Cicero,  Sopho- 

152 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


cles  and  Homer;  they  have  studied  something 
of  the  wonderful  architecture  and  sculpture 
of  the  Greeks ;  have  learned  a  little  about 
Socrates,  Plato  and  Aristotle ;  have  scanned 
parts  of  Sophocles  and  iEschylus  and  Eurip¬ 
ides;  have  read  some  about  the  age  of  Per¬ 
icles,  and  have,  in  fact,  got  a  glimpse  of  that 
wonderful  Greek  civilization,  under  which  was 
a  cesspool  of  immorality.  Greek  civilization 
failed  for  lack  of  a  moral  basis. 

The  Bible,  the  only  book  that  condemns 
sin  in  all  its  forms,  the  only  book  that  pre¬ 
sents  an  ideal  character  of  teaching  and  con¬ 
duct  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  has 
been  excluded  from  college  curricula  and 
trodden  underfoot  of  men.  And  why?  It  is 
said  that  the  formation  of  character  ought  to 
be  the  great  aim  of  education.  And  yet  we 
read  remarkable  things  of  Seniors  in  our 
highest  institutions  of  learning ;  we  read  of 
their  almost  universal  ignorance  of  the  common 
facts  of  the  Bible.  How  long  will  it  take  our 
higher  education  to  come  to  itself? 


University  op  Texas. 

Office  of  the  President. 

Austin,  Tex.,  July  16,  1920. 
Prof.  A.  Fairhurst,  Lexington,  Ky. 

My  Dear  Sir: — Keplying  to  your  letter  of 

June  17,  containing  certain  questions  with 

153 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


reference  to  evolution  and  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  presented  in  the  University  of 
Texas,  I  am  sending  you  enclosed  a  statement 
which  has  been  drawn  up  by  Prof.  D.  B. 
Casteel,  of  our  Department  of  Zoology,  who  is 
in  charge  of  this  course.  In  a  letter  of  trans¬ 
mittal  to  me,  Professor  Casteel  says: 

‘  ‘  I  have  endeavored  to  answer  Professor 
Fairhurst’s  questions  in  an  impersonal  manner, 
according  to  the  opinion  of  the  average  scien¬ 
tist,  so  that  you  can  transmit  them  to  him  as 
of  such  origin.,’ 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Kobert  E.  Vinson,  Pres. 

Answers  by  Prof.  D.  B.  Casteel,  of  the 
Department  of  Zoology: 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “Yes;  in  a  figurative  sense,  but 
not  as  an  exact  definition.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct  ? 

Answer — “It  is  essentially  correct.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing, 
as  a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 

154 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


that  have  taken  place,  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  not  evolu¬ 
tion  the  one  universal  process,  the  one  uni¬ 
versal  science? 

Answer — “Yes.” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — ‘‘The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  a 
theory  in  the  sense  that  it  presents  the  most 
reasonable  general  explanation  of  the  data  of 
science.  ’  ’ 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “As  a  scientific  generalization, 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  bears  no  necessary 
relation  to  miracles.’ ’ 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  teaching  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment?  In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be 
modified  ? 

Answer — “Without  doubt  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  the  public  schools  results  in  a  cer¬ 
tain  amount  of  mental  unrest  among  thought¬ 
ful  students.  If  properly  imparted,  however, 
such  instruction  will  not  offend,  nor  will  it 
undermine  the  foundations  of  religious  belief. 

In  its  broader  sense,  an  evolutionary  interpre¬ 
ts 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


tation  of  nature  in  no  way  denies  the  actuality 
of  a  controlling  power,  and  this  conception 
of  the  method  of  ‘creation’  will,  if  rightly 
understood,  lead  to  a  truer  appreciation  of  the 
extent  of  ‘the  omniscience  and  the  omnipo¬ 
tence  resident  in  Divinity.’  ” 

‘  ‘  Science  is  founded  upon  facts,  and  its 
generalizations  result  from  examination  of 
hypotheses,  which  are  only  accepted  when  they 
most  reasonably  explain  available  data.  Re¬ 
ligious  belief  is  primarily  founded  upon  faith 
and  experience,  and  its  attitude  towards 
evidence  is  less  critical  than  that  of 
science.  Science  and  religion  approach  the 
question  of  the  method  of  creation  from  essen¬ 
tially  different  standpoints.  If  this  fact  is 
realized  by  the  teacher  and  transmitted  to  his 
students,  much  mental  confusion  may  be 
avoided.” 

“The  idea  of  evolution  should  be  imparted 
in  a  natural  manner,  as  a  logical  generaliza¬ 
tion  from  scientific  facts,  with  which  students 
are  becoming  familiar.  Its  acceptance  should 
not  be  required,  nor  its  rejections  be  ridiculed. 
As  a  rule,  immature  high-school  students  are 
unprepared  for  a  proper  consideration  of 
evolution.” 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 

which  you  are  president? 

156 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Answer — “In  general,  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  is  accepted,  and  those  branches  of  science 
and  philosophy  which  it  affects  are  taught 
from  the  evolutionary  standpoint.” 

Professor  Casteel,  in  answering  these  ques¬ 
tions,  shows  that  he  recognizes  the  fact  that 
evolution  has  vital  hearing  on  the  teachings 
of  Christ  as  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament. 
He  seems  to  evade  an  answer  to  Question  5. 
Christ  claimed  to  perform  miracles.  When 
the  Professor  answers  “Yes”  to  Question  3,  a 
part  of  which  is  “Is  it  not  the  one  universal 
process,  the  one  universal  science*?”  he  abso¬ 
lutely  denies  the  possibility  of  miracles. 

When  evolution  claims  the  whole  field  as  a 
scientific  process,  it,  of  necessity,  excludes 
every  supernatural  process. 

The  Professor  says:  “Without  doubt,  the 
teaching  of  evolution  in  the  public  schools  re¬ 
sults  in  a  certain  amount  of  mental  unrest 
among  thoughtful  students.”  This  means,  to 
my  mind,  that  the  thoughtful  pupils  realize 
that  the  Christian  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament  are  being  pushed  aside  in  the 
interests  of  an  unprovable  hypothesis.  Some 
of  them,  however,  become  so  blinded  that  they 
abandon  the  Bible  as  a  booh  of  divine  author¬ 
ity.  The  question  which  evolution  raises  is 

not  simply  one  of  theism,  a  question  which 

157 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


does  not  necessarily  include  the  Bible  as  a 
revelation  at  all,  but  it  raises  the  question  as 
to  Christ’ s  teaching ,  works  and  authority. 
The  latter,  of  necessity,  involves  miracles, 
while  the  former  does  not.  The  contention 
of  the  Christian  is  not  simply  for  theism,  but 
also  for  Christian  theism,  which  involves  the 
deity  of  Christ. 

Many  evolutionists  grant  theism  in  some 
sense,  grant  the  ethics  of  Christ,  but  this  is 
the  limit  of  their  teaching.  This  only  annihi¬ 
lates  Christianity  as  a  system  of  religion.  Of 
course,  evolution  does  not  necessarily  deny 
“the  actuality  of  a  controlling  power” — one 
of  “omniscience  and  omnipotence  resident  in 
Divinity.”  The  vital  question  arises:  How 
has  this  Divinity  manifested  itself?  Evolution, 
in  its  universal  scope,  says,  “Only  through 
natural  processes;”  and  many  add,  “By 
means  of  resident  forces.” 

I  write  in  behalf  of  the  thoughtful  *ew, 
whose  faith  may  be  wrecked  by  a  scrap  of  a 
theory.  Evolution,  when  considered  in  its 
entirety,  is  so  illogical  and  deficient  of  a  basis 
of  known  and  knowable  facts  that  few  who 
know  all  will  be  led  to  accept  it.  They  go 
chasing  a  word  that  changes  its  color  and 
meaning  in  the  flight  of  time,  and,  like  a  will- 
o’-the-wisp,  leads  one  through  dismal  intellec¬ 
tual  swamps  in  the  vain  pursuit  of  that  which 

158 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


can  never  be  overtaken.  Some  of  the  thought¬ 
ful  few  are  led  astray  in  the  vain  endeavor 
to  put  all  on  a  scientific  basis.  In  what  scien¬ 
tific  terms  can  we  interpret  a  mother’s  love, 
a  pang  of  sorrow,  or  a  sincere  prayer  to  God ? 
The  best  and  greatest  things  of  the  soul  can 
not  be  analyzed  by  laboratory  methods.  They 
are  above  the  scientific  method. 

Forty  years  of  my  life  have  been  spent  in 
colleges  teaching  various  branches  of  science. 
Darwinism  has  been  in  vogue  all  of  that  time. 
Men  are  saying  we  make  evolution  the  back¬ 
bone  of  the  teaching  of  all  our  sciences.  In 
what  way,  I  pray  you,  is  chemistry,  the 
queen  of  all  the  sciences,  dependent  on  evolu¬ 
tion  ?  This  theory  has  brought,  and  can 
bring,  nothing  of  real  value  to  chemistry.  If 
the  word  “evolution”  had  not  been  heard  of, 
still  chemistry  would  be  the  supreme  science. 
For  awhile  she  was  looked  to  for  help  to  derive 
living  matter  from  the  inorganic  world,  but 
her  failure  to  do  this  was  complete,  and,  as 
I  think,  final. 

Physics  deals  with  mass  action  and  with 
most  of  the  forces  of  nature.  Many  of  her 
methods  are  known,  and  results  can  be  meas¬ 
ured  and  weighed  with  exactness.  Physics  does 
not  need  the  idea  of  evolution.  Her  processes 
do  not  depend  upon  it.  Why  talk  of  making 

it  the  guiding  principle  in  physics? 

159 


Atheism  in  Oar  Universities 


That  change  has  occurred  everywhere  as 
time  has  elapsed  is  evident,  but  change  alone 
does  not  constitute  evolution.  The  words 
“static”  and  “dynamic,”  that  are  now  in 
common  use,  do  not  denote  accurately  condi¬ 
tions  of  minds  that  exist,  for  all  minds  accept 
dynamic,  in  the  sense  that  changes  every¬ 
where  take  place. 

There  are  many  who  seem  to  lack  the 
logical  sense.  They  still  vote  for  Andrew 
Jackson,  as  their  fathers  and  grandfathers 
did  before  them.  Their  ignorance  is  to  them 
bliss.  The  multitude  follows  the  brass  band. 

Some  of  the  thoughtful  few  are  being  side¬ 
tracked  on  a  fruitless  theory  that  renders  their 
lives  largely  unfruitful  by  paralyzing  their 
moral  and  religious  instincts.  Man  without 
the  Christian  religion  fails  to  attain  his  high¬ 
est  end.  There  is  no  perfect  ideal  to  he  found 
elsewhere. 

Many  of  the  young  men  who  have  the  “up- 
to-date  thought,”  the  “scientific  method,” 
and  who  are  supposed  to  be  free  from  all  “re¬ 
ligious  superstitions,”  are  made  professors  in 
our  colleges,  especially  in  the  department  of 
biology.  A  considerable  number  of  these 
men  are  atheists,  agnostics,  or  merely  nominal 
Christians.  These  men  teach  the  rising  genera¬ 
tion.  What  crop  can  we  expect?  Christian¬ 
ity  has  wrestled  with  and  defeated  all  the 

160 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


philosophies  of  the  past,  and  now  she  strug¬ 
gles  with  this  newest  philosophy  that  has 
really  become  a  fad  among  men.  The 
public  is  ignorantly  supporting  the  men  who 
are  sowing  the  seeds  of  destruction  among 
them.  I  would  not  sound  a  false  alarm, 
but  the  time  is  at  hand  when  the  public 
should  take  notice  of  the  effects  of  its  own 
ignorant  acts. 

“Oh,  yes,”  says  one,  “of  course,  in  the 
readjustment  that  must  take  place  in  the 
minds  of  the  young  between  their  religious 
teaching  and  the  prevailing  views  of  the  scien¬ 
tific  world,  some  will  lose  their  faith.”  That 
is,  accepting  the  theory  of  naturalism  that 
is  served  up  to  them  under  the  name  of 
science  as  true,  Christian  religious  beliefs 
will  be  given  up  so  that  Christian  effort  will 
be  paralyzed  or  rendered  negative,  if 
not  positively  destroyed.  I  protest  that 
much  of  this  “science”  (?)  is  only  vague 
theory. 

Professor  Casteel  says,  in  answer  to  Ques¬ 
tion  6:  “If  properly  imparted,  however,  such 
instruction  will  not  offend,  nor  will  it  under¬ 
mine  the  foundations  of  religion.”  How  can 
he  reconcile  this  statement  with  his  answer 
“Yes”  to  Question  3,  which  makes  evolu¬ 
tion  “the  one  universal  process,  the  one  uni¬ 
versal  science”?  If  evolution  is  the  one  uni- 
11  161 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


versal  process,  all  things  must  happen  as  parts 
of  the  process.  But  it  is  evident  that  miracles, 
revelations,  objective  answers  to  prayer,  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  Pentecost,  the  efficiency 
of  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  virgin  birth, 
and  many  other  things,  could  not  have  hap¬ 
pened  as  a  part  of  this  scientific  process. 
I  have  asked  in  vain  that  the  teacher  of 
naturalism  explain  how  he  can  reconcile 
the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  with  his 
process. 

Professor  Casteel  says:  “Science  and  re¬ 
ligion  approach  the  question  of  the  method  of 
creation  from  essentially  different  stand¬ 
points.  ”  And  then  he  immediately  adds:  “If 
this  fact  is  realized  by  the  teacher  and  trans¬ 
mitted  to  his  students,  much  mental  confusion 
may  be  avoided.”  This,  to  my  mind,  is  say¬ 
ing  by  the  teacher:  “I  will  show  you  how  to 
reconcile  two  irreconcilables.  I  will  use  much 
camouflage  by  covering  up  my  meaning  with 
many  superfluous  words  that  mean  nothing. 
By  an  intellectual  sleight-of-hand,  I  will  re¬ 
move  from  your  Christian  religion  all  that 
you  regard  as  supernatural,  and  leave  you 
stranded  with  some  kind  of  an  unapproach¬ 
able  Deity  of  whose  attributes  science  knows 
nothing.  I  will  leave  you  in  the  hands  of  the 
great  unknown  and  unknowable  Power.”  This 

162 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


is  agnosticism,  and,  practically,  atheism.  (I 
use  the  word  *  ‘science”  here  for  the  word 
“  evolution.  ”) 

The  great  difficulty  with  evolutionists  is 
that  they  are  so  anxious  to  make  everything 
appear  “  scientific  ’  ’  that  they  lose  sight  of  God 
and  Christ  and  all  revealed  religion.  And 
yet  the  Bible — God’s  revealed  word — has  done 
more  for  the  betterment  of  mankind  than  all 
the  wonders  of  science.  Science  may  make  a 
fat  body  and  a  fat  pocket-book,  and  leave  a 
lean  soul.  There  is  nothing  in  science  that 
appeals  to  conscience ,  that  redeems  from  sin . 
Science  leaves  the  soul  in  the  slough  of 
despond. 

Professor  Casteel  says:  4 4 The  idea  of  evolu¬ 
tion  should  be  imparted  in  a  natural  manner, 
as  a  logical  generalization  from  scientific  facts, 
with  which  students  are  becoming  familiar.” 
This  is  certainly  a  commendable  way  of  pre¬ 
senting  the  subject.  With  his  answer  to  Ques¬ 
tion  3,  that  evolution  is  “the  one  universal 
process,  the  one  universal  science,”  let  us 
apply  the  method.  We  will,  according  to  this, 
consider  it  as  “the  one  universal  process.” 
Accordingly  we  begin  with  the  earth  before 
life  appeared.  At  that  time  the  only  things 
that  could  be  known  were  the  different  kinds 
of  matter  and  the  forces  of  nature.  It  is 

certain  to  my  mind  that  evolution  did  not  pre- 

163 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


pare  the  essential  elements  of  the  right  kinds 
and  quantities  that  are  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  bodies  of  living  things.  This  could 
only  be  done  by  a  controlling  Deity.  But  the 
forces  of  nature  were  present.  They  were  at 
work  on  the  different  kinds  of  matter.  The 
earth  for  a  long  time  was  losing  much  energy 
in  the  form  of  heat.  The  chemical  forces 
were  active,  producing  a  great  number  of 
minerals.  The  world  was  not  undergoing 
evolution,  but  simply  changing.  The  changes 
lacked  the  continuity,  the  genetic  connection 
that  must  exist  in  organic  evolution.  Finally, 
the  earth  was  in  a  condition  to  support  living 
things.  But  evolution  is  the  sole  process  of 
procedure.  Its  only  scientific  factors  are  mat¬ 
ter  and  the  forces  of  nature.  These  must 
produce  a  living  organism  from  dead  matter. 
This  was  spontaneous  generation.  All  scien¬ 
tists  agree  that  spontaneous  generation  has  not 
been  proved ,  and  that  there  is  no  hope  of 
proving  it.  I  need  not  quote  authorities  at 
this  time. 

We  suppose  now  that  the  first  living  thing 
appears.  By  supposition  it  is  a  cell,  a  living, 
self-nourishing,  self-propagating  organism  of 
complex  structure.  The  production  of  this 
first  living  thing  a  miracle?  “No!”  says 
the  evolutionist;  “that  would  not  be  ‘scien¬ 
tific’!  I  must  have  science  and  the  scientific 

164 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


method.  I  don’t  need  God  to  explain  this.” 
The  result  is,  he  does  not  and  can  not  explain, 
but  assumes  that  it  has  occurred.  We  travel 
this  purely  imaginary  road  of  evolution  till, 
by  and  by,  we  come  to  the  one-celled  animal 
which  has  feeling.  Whence  the  feeling?  We 
know  no  more  about  its  origin  than  we  know 
as  to  how  life  came.  There  is  no  conceivable 
connection  between  matter  and  force,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  feeling  on  the  other.  Did  not 
God  perform  a  miracle  and  thus  give  sensation 
to  the  animal?  “No!  no!”  cries  the  evolu^ 
tionist;  “that  would  not  be  scientific.  We 
don’t  need  God!”  And  so  he  explains  his 
fact  of  science  (?)  by  assuming  it  in  the  usual 
way.  “And  how  does  your  evolution  account 
for  sex  in  the  organic  world?”  “It  does  not 
account  for  it ;  but  sex  is  here,  and  we  assume 
that  it  came  by  the  scientific  method,  for  there 
is  no  other.”  “But  the  Bible  says:  ‘God 
made  them  male  and  female.’  ”  “That  can’t 
be  true  where  law  reigns  and  determines  every¬ 
thing!  So  we  go  right  along  with  our  so-called 
scientific  method — evolution — and  we  easily 
bridge  the  countless  chasms  with  assumptions 
that  are  used  as  facts  to  help  up  to  more  as¬ 
sumptions  that  bridge  other  chasms.  They 
are  much  easier  to  obtain  than  facts,  and  they 
serve  equally  well,”  says  the  self-conceited 
dogmatist. 


165 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary, 
Princeton,  N.  J. 

Pres.  J.  Ross  Stevenson. 

President  Stevenson  has  handed  these  ques¬ 
tions  to  me  to-day  (Nov.  16,  1920),  with  a  re¬ 
quest  that  I  answer  them.  I  shall  be  glad  to 
answer  further  inquiries. 

W.  Brent  Greene,  Jr., 
Professor  of  Apologetics  and  Christian  Ethics 

in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “No.  Evolution  presupposes  crea¬ 
tion,  and  is  only  one  of  many  ways  of  the 
Creator’s  operation.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “No,  unless  God  be  regarded  as 
sustaining  and  directing  these  resident  forces 
and  acting  often  supernaturally ;  i.  e.,  in¬ 
dependently  of  them.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing, 
as  a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 

that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take  place 

166 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 
one  universal  process,  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “No.  Divine  intervention  has 
played  an  even  more  important  part  in  the 
development  of  the  universe.” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “Only  a  theory.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib- 
ted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “It  is  not.” 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  common¬ 
ly  accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testament? 
In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be  modified? 

Answer — “Such  teaching  will  destroy,  and 
has  already  undermined,  the  faith  of  our  people 
in  the  living  God,  who  ‘doeth  according  to 
his  will  in  the  armies  of  heaven  and  among 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.’  It  is  the  con¬ 
tradiction  of  the  New  Testament.  No  scheme 
of  evolution  can  be  accepted  that  does  not 
(1)  posit  God  at  the  start  as  the  absolute  crea¬ 
tor  out  of  nothing  of  the  original  germs;  that 
does  not  (2)  make  this  God  immanent  in  the 
whole  process  of  evolution,  sustaining  it  and 

directing  it,  and  so  working  His  will  through 

167 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


it  and  by  means  of  it,  and  that  does  not  (3) 
regard  God  as  transcendent,  and,  as  such,  in¬ 
tervening  personally,  and  so  putting  into  the 
stream  what  was  not  in  it  before,  and  could 
not  have  come  out  of  it;  for  example,  Christ 
and  His  miracles.  ” 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  In  the  theological  seminary  of 
which  Dr.  Stevenson  is  president,  evolution  is 
accepted  and  taught  as  one  of  the  ways  through 
which  and  by  which  God  accomplishes  His 
eternal  purposes/  ’ 

The  above  answers  are  so  plain  that 
comment  seems  useless.  I  believe,  with  the 
Professor,  that  evolution  as  frequently 
taught  is  undermining  the  faith  of  many  of 
our  people. 

- r*TJ 

Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Pres.  John  Grier  Hibben. 

(By  Prof.  E.  G.  Conklin,  Professor  of  Biology, 
by  request  of  President  Hibben ’s  secretary.) 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “Not  unless  the  word  *  creation’ 
is  used  in  a  sense  different  from  that  common¬ 
ly  employed.  Evolution  is  the  origin  of  new 

168 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


forms  by  transmutation,  rather  than  by  new 
formation.  ’ 9 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 
according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “Yes,  except  that  the  changes 
are  not  always  continuous  nor  always  pro¬ 
gressive.  ’  ’ 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing, 
as  a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 
one  universal  process,  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “Yes,  the  same  fundamental  proc¬ 
esses  are  everywhere  involved.  Evolution  is 
transformation  by  new  combination  of  units 
or  elements,  whether  in  chemistry  or  biology.” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “Many  phases  of  evolution  are 
demonstrable,  others  are  only  theoretical.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “Evolution  does  not  directly  bear 

on  any  of  the  miracles,  but  science  and  scien- 

169 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


tific  laws  do  make  improbable  all  supernatural- 

•  )  ) 

ism. 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment?  In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be 
modified  ? 

Answer — ‘ 1  Science,  rather  than  evolution, 
teaches  the  universality  of  natural  laws.  The 
teachings  of  the  New  Testament  are  chiefly 
ethical.  It  is  the  best  code  of  ethics  extant, 
and  should  be  taught  from  this  standpoint, 
rather  than  as  a  text-book  of  science.  ” 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  professor  of  biology? 

Answer — “It  is  fully  accepted  and  freely 
taught  to  all  students  in  the  Department  of 
Biology.” 

It  is  evident  that  the  evolution  which  Pro¬ 
fessor  Conklin  accepts  eliminates  miracles 
and  all  “supernaturalism.”  That  “science” 
“teaches  the  universality  of  natural  laws,”  in 
the  sense  in  which  he  evidently  means  it,  is 
not  at  all  apparent  to  my  mind.  To  the  minds 
of  most  of  those  who  make  this  statement  the 
course  of  events  is  fixed ;  they  run  in  grooves, 
with  no  hope  of  getting  out;  they  represent 

170 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


the  process  of  determinism,  that  eliminates 
free  will  and  destroys  all  moral  responsibility. 
When  we  speak  of  the  universality  of  law,  we 
are  likely  not  to  include  the  action  of  free 
mind.  The  blind  forces  of  nature  would,  and 
could,  produce  only  certain  fixed  and  invari¬ 
able  results.  Mind  so  directs  and  controls  the 
action  of  these  blind  forces  that  they  do  work 
that  could  not  be  done  without  it.  We  are 
accustomed  to  say  that  these  forces  act  accord¬ 
ing  to  law ;  but  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  they 
are  not  acting  in  the  same  way  when  con¬ 
trolled  that  they  do  when  not  so  controlled. 
The  production  by  a  falling  weight,  when 
controlled  by  mind,  of  light,  heat,  electricity, 
magnetism,  chemical  force,  mechanical  motion, 
to  which  I  have  before  referred,  is  an  example. 
With  mind  in  control,  the  results  of  a  given 
amount  of  force  are  not  predetermined  in  the 
sense  in  which  they  are  in  the  inorganic  world. 
There  is  no  reign  of  law  that  determines  any 
definite  results  which  a  given  force  will  accom¬ 
plish  under  the  control  of  mind. 

The  Professor  states  in  Question  5  that 
“science  and  scientific  laws  do  make  improbable 
all  supernaturalism.”  I  do  not  see  how  any 
laws  of  science  in  any  way  conflict  with  super¬ 
naturalism.  Some  theories  that  men  claim  may 
conflict  with  the  supernatural.  True  science 

can  not  conflict  with  true  religion ,  for  God  is 

171 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


th  author  of  both.  We  can  not  know  that 
God  limits  His  work  to  the  method  of  natural¬ 
ism.  Is  it  not  possible  that  an  infinite  Mind 
can  do  things  in  ways  unknown  to  man? 

The  question  of  the  supernatural  is  one  of 
evidence,  but  when  we  arbitrarily  claim, 
as  some  do,  that  evolution,  the  scientific 
method,  is  universal,  we  at  once  eliminate 
the  supernatural,  and  deny  that  any  evidence 
can  be  offered  in  its  support.  This  is  not  the 
logic  of  true  science.  Science  is  open  to  proof 
from  all  directions. 

Professor  Conklin  applies  the  word  “evo¬ 
lution”  to  chemistry  and  biology  as  if  the 
two  were  on  a  similar  basis.  Chemistry  in¬ 
volves  the  action  of  the  free  human  mind, 
and  it  does  not,  and  can  not,  include  the 
continuity  that  must  always  prevail  in 
biology.  The  word  “evolution”  can  not  be 
applied  to  chemistry  in  the  biological  sense. 


Boston  University,  Boston,  Mass. 

Pres.  Lemuel  H.  Murlin. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “No.  Evolution  is  a  theory  as 
to  a  method  of  creation.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 
“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 

172 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “This  is  a  fairly  good  descriptive 
answer,  if  by  ‘resident  forces ’  is  meant  forces 
that  were  made  resident  by  ‘some  other 
power’  than  that  of  the  being  in  which  the 
changes  were  made.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing, 
as  a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages,  in¬ 
cluding  all  material  and  psychological  changes 
that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take  place 
in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is  it  not  the 
one  universal  process,  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “In  the  main,  I  think  you  have 
given  a  very  good  answer,  provided  that  proc¬ 
ess  is  made  possible  by  ‘a  power  not  our¬ 
selves,’  which  the  ‘theistic  evolutionist’  says 
is  ‘a  personal  power’;  namely,  God.” 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “A  theory.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “I  should  say  that  what  we  com¬ 
monly  call  theistic  evolution  is  entirely  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  teachings  and  words  of  Christ 
as  given  in  the  New  Testament.” 

173 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  in  our 
public  schools  on  the  commonly  accepted  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  New  Testament?  In  what  way  must 
this  teaching  be  modified? 

Answer — “To  answer  this  question  we  would 
have  to  define  very  carefully  what  is  meant 
by  ‘evolution’  and  what  is  meant  by  ‘com¬ 
monly  accepted  teachings  of’  on  the  one 
hand  and  ‘the  New  Testament’  on  the  other. 
A  proper  definition  of  these  two  involves  no 
conflict,  and  they  are  helpful  to  each  other.” 

6.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  The  doctrine  of  theistic  evolu¬ 
tion  is  generally  accepted  as  the  most  satisfac¬ 
tory  hypothesis  of  the  method  of  creation  and 
development  of  the  world.” 


174 


X. 


LETTERS  AND  ANSWERS  TO 
QUESTIONS 

Dean  Franklin  N.  Parker,  Candler  School 
of  Theology,  Emory  University;  Pres. 
C.  A.  Barbour,  Rochester  Theological 
Seminary;  Pres.  Henry  C.  King,  Oberlin 
College  ;  Pres.  W.  0.  Thompson,  Ohio 
State  University. 

Emory  University. 

Candler  School  of  Theology. 

Atlanta,  Ga.,  Sept.  15,  1920. 
Dear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

Your  letter  of  inquiry  regarding  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  status  of  Darwinism,  or  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  subject  of  evolution,  in  Emory 
University  received. 

I  am  not  in  a  position  to  give  you  any 
exact  information  on  this  matter,  as  I  have 
never  canvassed  the  question  with  the  pro¬ 
fessors  in  Emory  University  as  such. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 

the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

175 


% 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Answer — “I  have  to  plead  ignorance  in 
regard  to  Cope’s  statement  concerning  evolu¬ 
tion  as  the  science  of  creation.  I  have  not 
read  this  statement.  I  am  familiar  with 
Bergson’s  philosophic  viewpoint  and  do  not 
consider  that  it  is  adequate,  as  it  lacks  the 
definiteness  that  comes  from  a  clear  view  of 
the  personality  of  God.” 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolu¬ 
tion  “is  (1)  continuous  progressive  change, 
(2)  according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by 
means  of  resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “I  consider  Le  Conte’s  defini¬ 
tion,  as  you  state  it,  insufficient.  I  do  not 
think  that  the  term  “resident  forces”  covers 
the  factors  involved  in  history.  In  other 
words,  I  believe  that  there  is  the  action 
of  an  immanent  God  necessary  in  the  uni¬ 
verse.  ’  ’ 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world,  and  flowing 
as  a  continuous  stream  through  the  ages, 
including  all  material  and  psychological 
changes  that  have  taken  place  or  that  will 
take  place  in  the  future?  In  other  words,  is 
it  not  the  one  universal  process?  The  one 
universal  science? 

Answer — “It  seems  to  me  that  some  form 
of  development  is  characteristic  throughout 

the  realm  of  nature,  but  I  think  there  are  a 

176 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


number  of  problems  in  connection  with  this 
viewpoint  that  have  not  been  solved/  ’ 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “I  think  evolution  should  be 
considered  in  the  light  of  a  theory  or  hypoth¬ 
esis.  ’  ’ 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  at¬ 
tributed  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “The  scientific  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion,  as  stated  by  some  evolutionists,  is  not 
consistent  with  the  idea  of  miracles  attributed 
to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament.  For  ex¬ 
ample,  if  the  sources  of  life  and  power  are 
due  entirely  to  resident  forces  in  the  realm 
of  nature,  we  have  no  means  of  accounting 
for  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the 
event  is  described  in  the  New  Testament.’ ’ 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of 
evolution  in  our  public  schools  on  the  com¬ 
monly  accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment?  In  what  way  must  this  teaching  be 
modified? 

Answer — “Any  doctrine  of  development 
that  leaves  God  out  is,  in  my  judgment,  per¬ 
nicious.  I  think  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a 
type  of  theistic  evolution  which  can  be  held 

by  Christian  men.  Examples  of  this  can  be 
12  177 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


seen  in  men  like  Professor  Drummond,  and  I 
have  known  a  number  of  Christian  men  who 
were  theistic  evolutionists,  who  seemed  to 
find  that  they  could  harmonize  the  doctrine 
of  development  with  their  Christian  think¬ 
ing  and  Christian  experience.” 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evo¬ 
lution  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university 
of  which  you  are  president? 

Answer — “I  can  not  tell  you  the  extent 
to  which  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  accepted 
and  taught  in  the  university.  I  have  never 
canvassed  this  matter  as  a  general  thing.  I 
know  that  some  of  the  men  hold  to  the  view 
of  theistic  evolution,  but  I  have  arrived  at 
this  knowledge  by  a  merely  incidental  con¬ 
versation  on  scientific  subjects.  I  could  not 
answer  your  question  without  interviewing 
or  sending  out  a  questionnaire. 

“Permit  me  to  make  a  correction  in  regard 
to  the  matter  of  the  presidency  of  the  uni¬ 
versity.  I  have  been  acting  president,  having 
declined  the  chancellorship  and  the  presi¬ 
dency,  as  I  prefer  to  hold  my  position  as  dean 
of  the  School  of  Theology.  Bishop  Candler 
is  now  chancellor  of  the  university,  and  Dr. 
H.  W.  Cox  is  now  holding  the  position  of 
president  under  Bishop  Candler.” 

Yours  sincerely, 

Franklin  N.  Parker,  Dean. 

178 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


That  changes  have  taken  place,  both  in  the 
dead  and  the  living  world,  through  the  long 
ages  of  the  earth’s  history,  no  one  informed 
doubts.  If  these  changes  are  evolution,  then 
all  are  evolutionists. 


Oberlin  College, 

Oberlin,  0. 

My  Dear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

It  is  pretty  difficult  to  express  oneself  very 
satisfactorily  on  a  subject  like  evolution 
through  a  questionnaire,  though  I  am  enclos¬ 
ing  my  answers  to  the  questionnaire  as  a  kind 
of  supplementary  statement. 

My  own  views  of  the  relation  of  Christian¬ 
ity  to  evolution  are  contained  in  three  chap¬ 
ters  of  my  “Reconstruction  in  Theology,” 
published  by  the  Macmillan  Company:  Chap¬ 
ters  V.,  VI.  and  VII.  The  subjects  of  these 
three  chapters  are  “Scientific  Influences,’1 
“Miracles  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Science”  and 
“The  Special  Bearing  of  Evolution.” 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Henry  C.  King,  Pres. 

1.  Is  Cope’s  statement  that  “evolution  is 
the  science  of  creation”  correct? 

Answer — “It  might  be  said  to  be  loosely 
true.  ’ ’ 

2.  Is  Le  Conte’s  definition  that  evolution 

“is  (1)  continuous,  progressive  change,  (2) 

179 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


according  to  fixed  laws,  (3)  and  by  means  of 
resident  forces,”  correct? 

Answer — “In  general.  It  should  be  held  in 
mind,  however,  that  there  may  be  degeneration 
as  well  as  progress  under  evolution.” 

3.  Is  not  evolution  a  universal  process, 
beginning  in  the  inorganic  world  and  flowing, 
as  a  continuous  stream,  through  the  ages, 
including  all  material  and  psychological 
changes  that  have  taken  place  or  that  will  take 
place  in  the  future  ?  In  other  words,  is  it 
not  the  one  universal  process,  the  one  universal 
science  ? 

Answer — “Yes,  if  the  term  is  used  very 
broadly.  ’  ’ 

4.  Is  evolution  to  be  regarded  as  a  science 
or  only  a  theory? 

Answer — “I  should  call  it  a  theory.” 

5.  Is  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution 
consistent  with  the  miracles  commonly  attrib¬ 
uted  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament? 

Answer — “Yes,  so  far  as  miracles  are  con¬ 
ceived  as  occurring  under  law.” 

6.  What,  in  your  opinion,  has  been,  and 
what  will  be,  the  effect  of  the  teaching  of  evolu¬ 
tion  in  our  public  schools  on  the  commonly 
accepted  teachings  of  the  New  Testament?  In 
what  way  must  this  teaching  be  modified? 

Answer — “See  5.  The  essential  values  of 

the  New  Testament  are  unaffected.” 

180 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


7.  To  what  extent  is  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  accepted  and  taught  in  the  university  of 
which  you  are  president? 

Answer — “Quite  universally  I  suppose,  but 
not  materialistically  interpreted.  ’  ’ 

Henry  C.  King,  Pres. 

The  Ohio  State  University. 

W.  C.  Thompson,  President. 

My  Dear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

I  have  your  letter  of  the  7th.  Permit  me 
to  say  that  I  am  not  competent  to  make  reply 
to  your  communication.  My  personal  opinions 
would  not  have  any  great  value  in  the  case. 
It  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  only  way  a  satis¬ 
factory  answer  for  one’s  own  mind  can  be 
secured  on  such  problems  as  you  propose,  is 
to  make  an  investigation  of  the  literature  in 
the  case  and  reach  one’s  own  conclusion.  My 
own  reading  intimates  to  me  that  definitions 
such  as  you  refer  to  in  Question  No.  2  are 
always  subject  to  criticism  by  men  who  are 
in  substantial  agreement  with  the  man  who 
makes  the  definition.  Each  man  writes  himself 
out  in  accordance  with  his  own  thinking,  and 
probably  makes  some  small  contribution  to 
the  situation.  You  will  find,  in  a  recent 
number  of  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  an  article 
on  “Darwinism,”  by  John  Burroughs,  which, 

181 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


to  me,  is  one  of  the  most  enlightening  and 
stimulating  articles  I  have  read  for  a  long 
time. 

Under  these  conditions,  I  should  not  be 
able  to  state  to  what  extent  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  is  accepted  among  the  scholars  of  the 
country,  or  to  what  extent  it  is  taught.  I 
should  probably  make  a  general  statement  that 
in  some  form  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is 
accepted  by  practically  all  the  scholars  of  the 
country,  but  that  would  be  unsatisfactory  as 
a  statement  and  would  not  meet  the  purpose 
of  your  questionnaire.  I  could  not  offer  any 
objection  on  No.  6.  On  Question  No.  5,  a 
great  many  of  the  best  Christian  theological 
scholars  of  the  country  would  answer  yes ; 
others  would  answer  with  some  modification. 
I  do  not  believe,  therefore,  that  a  reply  to 
such  a  questionnaire  has  any  practical  signifi¬ 
cance  or  value. 

Your  very  truly, 

W.  C.  Thompson,  Pres. 

Rochester  Theological  Seminary. 

Office  of  the  President. 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  Sept.  10,  1920. 

My  Bear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

I  have  your  questionnaire  regarding  evolu¬ 
tion.  Rather  than  to  answer  in  detail  the 

182 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


questions  which  you  ask,  I  prefer  to  state  the 
position  of  the  members  of  the  Faculty  in  the 
Rochester  Theological  Seminary.  I  think  that 
I  am  not  misrepresenting  any  one  of  them  in 
so  doing.  So  far  as  I  know,  in  their  thinking 
and  their  teaching  all  of  the  members  of  the 
Faculty  accept  the  philosophy  of  evolution, 
if  you  define  evolution  as  a  continuous  chain 
of  causation,  a  part  of  which  causation  are 
the  conscious  and  purposeful  acts  of  the 
living  God  where  in  His  infinite  wisdom  and 
love  there  is  call  for  His  immediate  interven¬ 
tion. 

We  do  not  accept  a  merely  materialistic 
evolution.  Behind  sequence  and  behind  age¬ 
long  development  there  is  an  originating  and 
controlling  Mind,  and  matter  is  without  mean¬ 
ing  apart  from  spirit.  So  far  as  I  know,  we 
all  accept  the  sublime  message  of  God’s 
sovereignty  in  creation,  and  we  certainly  do 
not  reject  the  miraculous  element  in  the  Bible 
as  unhistorical. 

A  theory  of  materialistic  evolution,  wher¬ 
ever  it  is  taught,  is  disastrous,  and  unspeak¬ 
ably  so.  I  am  afraid  that  such  a  theory  is 
taught  in  some  institutions  of  learning.  I 
believe  that  a  true  theory  of  evolution  can  be 
made  consistent  with  the  historicity  at  least 
of  some tof  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  I  myself  am  much  more  concerned  with 

183 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


the  religious  or  spiritual  truths  contained  in 
Scripture,  than  I  am  in  the  continual  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  conflict  or  the  agreement  between 
science  and  religion.  For  me,  and  I  am  sure 
for  us  all,  the  living  Christ  is  the  center  of 
our  thinking,  and,  I  humbly  trust,  of  our 
lives.  C,  A.  Barbour,  Pres. 


184 


XI. 


OTHER  LETTERS  AND  ANSWERS 


From  State  Superintendents  of  Public  In¬ 
struction  and  Others. 

BEFORE  sending  the  foregoing  question¬ 
naire  to  the  presidents  of  the  various  uni¬ 
versities,  I  sent  a  list  of  questions  to  a  con¬ 
siderable  number  of  superintendents  of  public 
instruction  of  some  of  the  leading  States.  The 
following  explains  itself: 

California  State  Board  of  Education. 


Office  of 


Commissioner 

Schools. 


of  Secondary 


May  27,  1920. 


Dear  Sir: 

Enclosed  is  a  questionnaire  filled  out  in 
pencil.  It  was  directed  to  the  Superintendent 
of  Public  Instruction  some  time  ago,  and  it 
was  referred  by  him  to  me. 

I  hope  this  information  will  not  reach  you 
too  late  to  be  of  service  to  you. 

Very  truly  yours, 

A.  C.  Olney,  Commissioner. 

185 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


The  Letter  and  Mr.  Olney's  Answers. 

Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  of 
California  : 

Dear  Sir — My  inquiry  is  to  obtain  informa¬ 
tion  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Darwinian 
theory,  or  any  other  theory  of  evolution,  is  be¬ 
ing  taught  by  authority  or  permission  in  the 
schools  under  your  supervision.  In  what 
schools,  if  any,  is  the  Darwinian  theory,  or 
any  other  theory,  of  evolution  taught? 

Answer — 1 1  High  schools.  ’  ’ 

Do  any  of  the  subjects  that  are  in  any 
course,  or  courses,  prescribed  by  the  State, 
presuppose  a  knowledge  and  acceptance  of 
the  Darwinian,  or  any  other,  theory  of  evolu¬ 
tion?  If  yes,  what? 

Answer — “No  particular  courses  required 
by  the  State.” 

If  teachers  are  not  required  to  teach  this 
doctrine,  is  there  any  objection  to  their  teach¬ 
ing  it? 

Answer — “No.” 

What  texts  are  recommended  for  teaching 
evolution  in  the  schools? 

Answer — “We  recommended  no  particular 
list  of  texts.  Under  separate  cover  is  a  list  of 
texts  that  may  be  adopted.” 

Is  not  evolution  regarded  as  established 

science  by  those  who  teach  it? 

186 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Answer — “Yes.” 

Do  yon  have  jurisdiction  over  the  Normal 
schools  ? 

Answer — “Yes;  State  Board  of  Education 
has.  ’  ’ 

Has  any  objection  been  offered  by  any 
patrons  of  schools  in  which  evolution  has  been 
taught,  to  the  teaching  of  the  subject  in  these 
schools  ¥ 

Answer — “I  know  of  none.” 

Do  you  think  that  practically  all  the  col¬ 
leges  and  universities  of  the  State  accept  and 
teach  the  theory  of  evolution? 

Answer — ‘  ‘  Y es,  certainly.  ’ ’ 

I  am  trying  to  obtain  reliable  informa¬ 
tion  as  to  the  status  of  this  subject  in  our 
educational  systems. 

Yours  very  truly, 

A.  Fairhurst. 

Commissioner  Olney  thinks  that  “yes,  cer¬ 
tainly,”  the  colleges  and  universities  of  Cali¬ 
fornia  accept  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion.  He  also  states  that  it  is  commonly  taught 
in  the  “high  schools.”  He  says  that  “under 
separate  cover  is  a  list  of  texts  that  may  be 
adopted,”  on  the  subject  of  evolution.  I  did 
not  get  this. 

The  most  surprising  answer  in  the  list  is, 

perhaps,  the  answer  “yes”  to  the  question, 

187 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


“Is  not  evolution  regarded  as  established 
science  by  those  who  teach  it?”  The  answer 
of  most  of  the  presidents  of  colleges  and  uni¬ 
versities  is  that  evolution  is  only  a  theory 
or  hypothesis.  The  public  is  being  deceived 
by  being  made  to  believe  that  this  theory 
is  an  important  branch  of  established  sci¬ 
ence.  And  then  the  teaching  of  it  is  made 
to  take  the  place  of  important  practical 
sciences  that  might  well  be  taught  in  high 
schools. 


State  of  Michigan. 

Department  of  Public  Instruction. 

My  Dear  Professor  Fairhurst: 

I  have  your  inquiry  of  the  27th.  I  am  a 
little  surprised  at  the  inquiry  as  I  have  never 
heard  the  matter  raised.  We  do  not  teach 
evolution  as  a  separate  subject  in  any  of 
the  schools,  but  it  is  taught  as  a  part  of  all 
science,  and  I  had  supposed  was  universally 
accepted. 

We  have  no  text-book  on  the  subject,  but 
I  suppose  it  is  rarely  that  a  teacher  of  biology 
does  not  mention  it.  I  have  no  personal  juris¬ 
diction  over  the  Normal  schools,  except  in  my 
capacity  as  a  member  of  the  State  Board  of 
Education.  [Here  follow  the  names  of  presi¬ 
dents  of  the  four  Normal  schools.!  .  As  far  as 

188 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


I  know,  all  the  colleges  and  the  university 
accept  some  form  of  evolutionary  theory. 

Very  truly  yours, 

T.  E.  Johnson,  Supt. 


State  of  Illinois. 

Department  of  Public  Instruction. 

Springfield,  Apr.  19,  1920. 
Bear  Mr.  Fairhurst: 

The  laws  of  Illinois  require  that  certain 
subjects  shall  be  taught  in  the  public  schools, 
but  there  has  never  been  any  attempt  to  say 
to  school  authorities  what  they  shall  not  teach. 
High  schools,  colleges  and  Normal  schools  are 
left  free  to  use  their  own  judgment  as  to 
what  they  shall  say  about  evolution. 

I  am  sending  you  under  separate  cover  a 
copy  of  the  educational  directory  of  Illinois. 

Yours  sincerely, 

F.  G.  Blair,  Supt. 


State  of  Indiana. 

State  Department  of  Public  Instruction. 

Dear  Sir •  Indianapolis,  Apr.  23,  1920. 

Your  letter  of  recent  date  was  duly  re¬ 
ceived.  In  reply  will  say  that  the  matter  of 
teaching  the  Darwinian  theory  of  evolution 

has  not  come  to  my  attention  for  some  time. 

189 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


It  does  not  seem  to  be  a  topic  that  is  attract¬ 
ing  special  attention  or  causing  unusual  dis¬ 
cussion  in  our  State  at  present.  So  far  as  I 
know,  the  theory  of  Darwin  is  generally  ac¬ 
cepted.  However,  in  order  that  you  may  con¬ 
duct  an  investigation  throughout  the  State, 
as  seems  best  to  you,  I  am  sending  you,  under 
another  cover,  a  copy  of  our  State  directory. 
In  it  you  will  find  the  names  of  all  the  col¬ 
lege  and  public-school  officials  in  Indiana.  I 
am  also  sending  you  a  copy  of  our  high-school 
course  of  study.  From  it  you  can  get  some 
information  as  to  just  what  we  are  doing  in 
a  scientific  way  in  our  high  schools. 

If  we  can  serve  you  further,  please  let  us 
know.  Very  truly, 

L.  N.  Hines,  State  Supt. 


The  University  of  the  State  of  New  York. 
The  State  Department  of  Education. 

Dear  Sir  •  Albany,  Apr.  21,  1920. 

Your  questionnaire  of  April  15th  regard¬ 
ing  the  theory  of  evolution  is  before  us. 

I  regret  that  we  have  no  definite  data  con¬ 
cerning  the  teaching  of  the  theory  of  evolu¬ 
tion  in  the  schools  of  this  State.  No  positive 
answers  to  your  questions  could  be  given  with¬ 
out  sending  out  to  each  of  the  State  schools 

for  a  report.  All  that  I  can  give  you  in  the 

190 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


way  of  reply  would  be  simply  impressions, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  correct. 

It  is  my  general  impression  that  the  theory 
of  evolution  is  accepted  and  taught  in  prac¬ 
tically  all  of  the  schools  and  colleges  of  this 
State,  but  possibly  not  exactly  in  the  form  in 
which  Darwin  presented  it,  but  in  the  general 
conception  that  the  higher  forms  are  evolved 
from  the  lower  forms  in  some  way. 

I  have  known  of  a  few  cases  in  which 
objection  has  been  made  to  the  teaching,  but 
I  think  the  objection  has  not  been  taken 
seriously.  Very  truly  yours, 

Chas.  F.  Wheelock, 

Assistant  Commissioner  for  Secondary  Educa¬ 
tion. 


The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts. 


Department  of  Education,  State  House. 

Division  of  Elementary  and  Secondary 
Education  and  Normal  Schools. 


Dear  Sir-  Boston,  May  6,  1920. 

Your  inquiry  relating  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Darwinian  theory,  or  any  other  theory,  of 
evolution  in  the  schools  of  this  State  has  been 
referred  to  me. 

The  cities  and  towns  of  Massachusetts  are 

not  prohibited  by  law  from  teaching  such  a 

191 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


theory.  The  superintendent  of  the  schools  of 
Boston  reports  that  the  Darwinian  theory  is 
not  taught  in  the  public  schools  of  Boston.  I 
regret  to  state  that  we  have  no  information 
with  regard  to  the  practice  in  the  other 
schools  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Under  separate  cover,  I  am  sending  you  an 
educational  directory,  which  will  give  you  the 
names  of  the  superintendents  of  the  schools  in 
this  State.  Very  truly  yours, 

Robert  I.  Bramball. 


Western  Illinois  State  Normal  School. 
Office  of  the  President. 

,,  a.  Apr.  30,  1920. 

My  Dear  Sir: 

The  letter  which  you  addressed  to  D.  P. 
Hollis  has  fallen  into  my  hands  to  be  answered, 
because  I  am  the  president  of  the  Western 
Illinois  State  Normal. 

I  wish  to  say  that  if  you  mean  by  Dar¬ 
winism  that  man’s  forefather  was  an  ape,  we 
are  not  resting  any  of  our  Normal  School 
courses  on  that  theory.  We  are,  however, 
very  largely  dependent  upon  the  general 
theory  of  evolution  in  all  our  scientific  courses 
and  also  in  our  social  sciences.  I  think  every 
modern  educational  institution  in  the  United 
States  accepts  the  general  theory  of  evolu¬ 
tion.  My  impression  is  that  they  do  not 

192 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


count  it  a  science,  but  rather  look  upon  it  as 
a  world  theory  which  they  are  willing  to  ac¬ 
cept.  The  general  meaning  of  evolution  which 
we  accept  is  that  the  world  as  it  is  to-day  is  a 
development  of  the  condition  in  which  it  was 
found  thousands  and  thousands  of  years  ago, 
and  that  society  is  an  outgrowth  of  the  true 
condition  in  which  it  was  found  in  ancient 
times.  I  think  this  is  about  all  that  need  be 
said  about  the  matter. 

Yours  very  truly, 

W.  P.  Morgan,  Pres. 


Eastern  Kentucky  State  Normal  School. 

Richmond,  Apr.  20,  1920. 

Dear  Sir: 

Replying  briefly  to  your  letter,  I  will 
state  that  in  the  four  years  that  I  have  been 
in  this  school,  I  have  never  heard  the  word 
1 1  Darwinism  *  ’  mentioned  on  this  campus.  If 
the  subject  has  ever  been  mentioned  in  a  class, 
I  have  never  heard  of  it.  This  is  a  Normal 
school,  and  we  are  engaged  in  the  problem  of 
training  teachers  to  teach  school,  and  not 
concerning  ourselves  about  such  subjects  as 
you  have  mentioned. 

We  have  a  library  of  something  like  ten 
thousand  volumes,  and  I  have  not  the  time 

the  inclimation  to  hunt  up  the  names  and 
13  193 


nor 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


authors  that  might  deal  incidentally  with 
evolution. 

I  hope  that  this  reply  will  be  satisfactory 
to  you.  Very  truly  yours, 

T.  J.  Coates,  Pres. 

The  last  two  writers  evidently  need  to  be 
brought  into  harmony  as  to  their  methods  of 
training  teachers.  President  Morgan  could 
not  teach  the  sciences  and  sociology  without 
the  aid  of  evolution,  while  President  Coates, 
it  seems,  entirely  ignores  the  subject. 

It  may  be  that  the  mental  makeup  of  the 
students  in  the  two  regions  will  explain  it.  If 
President  Coates  will  only  get  this  theory  on 
wheels  in  his  school,  he  may  witness  a  marvel¬ 
ous  awakening  among  his  students. 

Personally,  I  may  say  that  in  my  ex¬ 
perience  of  forty  years  in  teaching  the  various 
sciences  of  a  college  course  I  never  felt  the 
necessity  of  calling  to  my  aid  the  Darwinian 
or  any  other  theory  of  evolution,  nor  do  I 
believe  that  it  is  necessary  to  do  so  at  present. 
Its  advantages  are  imaginary. 

The  fact  is,  I  think,  as  I  have  claimed, 
that  evolution  could  not  take  place  where  re - 
sidts  are  due  to  the  workings  of  free  intellect, 
for  the  reason  that  there  can  he  no  genetic 
continuity.  This  applies  to  human  achieve¬ 
ments  in  all  fields. 


194 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


President  Morgan  is  evidently  referring  in 
his  definition  to  the  changes  and  the  progress 
that  have  taken  place  during  the  long  geo¬ 
logical  and  historical  past.  All  changes  of  all 
kinds  can  not,  with  any  propriety,  be  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  word  “  evolution  ”  in  the  Dar¬ 
winian  sense. 


14 


195 


XII. 


SOME  CONCLUSIONS. 

IN  preceding  articles  I  have  claimed  that  man 
is  a  free  moral  agent,  and  that,  as  such,  he 
is  not,  and  can  not  be,  under  the  absolute 
dominion  of  physical  force.  Free  mind  domi¬ 
nates  the  forces  of  nature,  and  thus  brings 
about  innumerable  results  that  could  not  other¬ 
wise  be  accomplished.  These  results  are  pro¬ 
duced  mostly  by  changing  one  force  into 
another  and  by  overcoming  force  by  means  of 
force.  Everywhere  in  nature  results  are 
brought  about  by  conflict  of  forces.  An  in¬ 
finite  God,  by  controlling  forces  that  are 
known,  and  possibly  by  others  that  are  un¬ 
known,  to  man,  may  bring  about  results  that 
we  call  supernatural,  by  means  of  conflicting 
forces,  as  man  does,  but  without  *  ‘violating’  ’ 
the  “laws  of  nature.”  I  have  explained  that 
“laws  of  nature”  are  the  methods  according 
to  which  forces  act,  and  that  these  methods 
may  be  determined  by  free  mind,  both  of  man 
and  God.  It  is  easy  to  believe  that  God  has  a 
larger  controlling  power  than  man.  I  have 

196 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


also  claimed  that  the  laws  of  nature  are  benef¬ 
icent  and  necessary  for  the  existence  and 
welfare  of  man. 

Again,  I  have  insisted  that  the  simple  sub¬ 
stances  present  in  the  world  that  are  necessary 
components  of  the  bodies  of  all  living  things, 
and  the  presence  of  a  large  number  of  elements 
that  are  useful  to  civilized  man,  and  the 
preparation  of  a  vast  number  of  things  con¬ 
ducive  to  man’s  physical  and  spiritual  wel¬ 
fare,  declare  in  an  unmistakable  way  the 
existence  of  a  wise  and  beneficent  Creator, 
who  was  looking  forward  through  the  ages  to 
the  coming  of  man. 

The  existence  also  of  the  forces  of  nature 
in  such  forms  and  quantities  as  to  be  most  use¬ 
ful  to  living  things  speaks  of  a  beneficent 
God.  All  this  could  not  be  purely  accidental. 
The  presence  of  the  right  kinds  and  quantities 
of  matter  and  forces  is  entirely  beyond  the 
process  of  evolution. 

If  intelligent  purpose  must  be  assumed  for 
a  beginning,  it  is  evident  that  the  time  would 
never  arrive  when  purpose  would  be  unneces¬ 
sary.  If  God  began  it,  then  God  is  all  the  way 
through  the  ages. 

I  have  also  endeavored  to  show  that 
“ scientific  evolution,”  based  on  “matter,  mo¬ 
tion  and  force,”  which,  by  assumption,  were 

the  only  things  present  before  life  appeared, 

197 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


utterly  fail  to  account  for  the  present  and 
past  condition  of  things  in  the  world. 

That  “life  comes  only  from  life”  is  a 
known  fact ,  which  has  been  accepted  as  a  fact, 
That  life  can  come  from  death,  all  experi¬ 
ments  and  observations  fail  to  prove.  Some 
evolutionists  are  still  groping  for  a  living 
organism  whose  parent  is  the  mineral  world, 
but  they  look  in  vain.  Without  a  first  living 
thing  born  of  the  mineral  world,  evolution 
has  no  beginning.  All  along  the  assumed  line 
of  evolution  from  “ monkey  to  man”  the  proc¬ 
ess  is  bridged  with  assumption  instead  of 
facts. 

“Matter,  motion  and  force”  not  only  fail 
to  produce  spontaneous  generation,  but  they 
utterly  fail  to  explain  the  existence  of  any 
psychological  power  whatever.  Feelings  of 
many  kinds,  numerous  instincts  and  the 
faculties  of  the  human  mind  are,  admit¬ 
tedly,  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  these  factors 
alone. 

From  the  answers  to  my  questionnaire,  it 
is  evident  that  those  who  have  answered  en¬ 
tertain  different  views  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  “evolution.” 

Some  include  in  the  word  “evolution”  all 
the  changes  that  have  taken  place  in  time. 
As  I  have  already  stated,  all  people  accept 

the  idea  of  changes  from  the  beginning  till 

198 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


now,  but  these  changes  can  not  all  be  included 
in  the  word  “evolution.” 

Others  apply  the  word  indiscriminately  to 
all  branches  in  a  college  curriculum.  This  is 
plainly  inadmissible.  Progress,  however,  has 
taken  place  in  every  subject. 

Again,  some  limit  the  use  of  the  word  to 
biology  and  history.  I  have  claimed  that  this 
is  a  wrong  use  of  the  word.  Zoology  demands 
genetic  continuity,  but  this  is  not  possible  in 
any  subject  that  is  due  to  the  action  of  free 
mind. 

Few,  if  any,  confine  the  use  of  the  word 
strictly  to  “organic  evolution,”  to  which  it 
especially  belongs. 

The  use  of  the  word  “evolution”  with  re¬ 
gard  to  the  organic  world  was  soon  enlarged 
by  Herbert  Spencer  and  others,  and  more  re¬ 
cently  by  Profs.  H.  W.  Conn  and  H.  F. 
Osborn,  and  many  other  evolutionists,  so  as 
to  make  the  process  universal.  Its  only  data 
were  “matter,  motion  and  force.”  These  were 
the  only  factors  with  which  to  account  for  all 
the  changes  in  the  physical  and  psychological 
worlds.  With  these  as  the  only  factors,  a 
philosophy  of  creation  has  been  constructed 
known  as  naturalism — a  false  philosophy, 
which  dispenses  with  God  and  all  that  the 
Christian  regards  as  supernatural.  This  theory 

is  rooted  and  grounded  in  many  of  our  higher 

199 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


institutions  of  learning ,  and  is  taught  by  men 
who  are  protected  under  the  plea  of  “aca¬ 
demic  liberty,”  and  who  are  often  being  paid 
for  their  work  out  of  the  public  treasury. 
This  so-called  scientific  method  is  wrecking  the 
Christian  faith  and  destroying  the  usefulness 
of  multitudes  of  young  men  and  women.  It 
is  against  this  view  of  evolution  that  I  call 
particular  attention.  That  this  condition  ex¬ 
ists,  I  am  sure  that  no  one  who  knows  the 
facts  will  deny. 

I  sound  no  false  alarm.  Professor  Le 
Conte  said:  “There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there 
is  at  present  a  strong,  and,  to  many,  an  over¬ 
whelming,  tendency  toward  materialism.  .  .  . 
Materialism  has  become  a  fashion  of  thought; 
and,  like  all  fashions,  must  be  guarded  against. 
This  tendency  has  been  created,  and  is  now 
guided,  by  science.  Just  at  this  time  it  is  the 
strongest  in  the  department  of  biology,  and 
especially  is  evolution  its  stronghold.” 

Pres.  C.  A.  Barbour,  of  Rochester  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminary,  recently  wrote:  “A  theory 
of  materialistic  evolution,  wherever  it  is 
taught,  is  disastrous,  and  unspeakably  so.  I 
am  afraid  that  such  a  theory  of  evolution  is 
taught  in  some  institutions  of  learning.” 

Prof.  W.  Brent  Greene,  of  Princeton  Theo¬ 
logical  Seminary,  writes  of  the  teaching  of 

evolution:  “Such  teaching  will  destroy,  and. 

200  ^ 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


has  already  undermined ,  the  faith  of  our 
people  in  the  living  God.” 

Le  Conte  says :  ‘  ‘  The  day  is  past  when 
skepticism  sneered  and  derided  the  Scriptures 
and  Christianity  and  Christ.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  now  respectful,  and  apparently  friendly, 
and  even  patronizing.  The  old  skepticism  was 
an  open  enemy ;  the  new  skepticism  is  the 
false  friend.  It  approaches  with  the  utmost 
politeness,  inquiring,  ‘Art  thou  in  health,  my 
brother  V  and  then  it  smites  under  the  fifth 
rib!  It  says  of  the  Scriptures  that  it  is  the 
noblest  of  human  productions;  full  of  the  most 
glowing  poetry;  the  simplest,  yet  the  sublim- 
est,  narratives;  the  divinest  system  of  morals. 
It  says  of  Christ  that  He  is  the  greatest  of  all 
reformers,  the  greatest  and  purest  of  all  human 
characters.  It  says  of  Christianity  that  it  is 
the  noblest  of  all  institutions,  but  that  it  is 
human,  and,  like  all  things  human,  it  must 
pass  away,  and  is,  indeed,  now  passing  away. 

“Their  mode  of  reasoning  is  ingenious;  it 
is  this:  All  things  are  relative,  and  therefore 
transitory;  every  system  of  doctrine  is  true, 
and  can  be  true,  only  relatively;  that  is,  for 
us  in  our  present  state  of  advance:  every  in¬ 
stitution  is  good  or  bad  only  relatively;  that 
is,  for  us  in  our  particular  stage  of  civiliza¬ 
tion,  and,  therefore,  every  system  of  doctrine 

and  every  institution  is  necessarily  only  sub- 

201 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


servient  to  the  progress  of  humanity ;  and, 
having  subserved  that  purpose,  it  must  pass 
away;  having  run  its  cycle,  it  becomes  useless, 
and  is  cast  off  like  a  worn-out  garment,  and 
makes  way  for  some  higher  system  or  institu¬ 
tion,  etc. 

“Have  we  indeed  reached  the  Christian 
ideal,  and  do  we  already  see  another  and  a 
higher?  What  is  the  Christian  ideal  of  moral¬ 
ity?  It  is  supreme  love  of  supreme  perfec¬ 
tion,  the  perfect  love  of  the  absolute  ideal,  and 
love  to  our  fellow-men  equal  to  that  given  to 
ourselves.  What  is  the  Christian  ideal  of 
character?  It  is  that  which  is  presented  to  us 
in  the  life  and  character  of  the  divine  Master. 
Have  these  ideals,  then,  been  already  left 
behind,  and  do  we  see  another  and  higher? 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  not  only  yet  unattained, 
but  absolutely  unattainable.  Even  the  skep¬ 
tic  must  admit  this.  It  is  an  absolute,  not  a 
relative,  ideal ;  it  is  impossible  for  the  human 
mind  even  to  conceive  a  higher.  An  absolute 
ideal!  What  is  this  but  a  divine  ideal t  .  .  . 
But  the  ideals  of  Christianity,  the  truths  of 
Christianity — these  are  not  human,  but  divine ; 
are  not  fleeting,  but  eternal.” 

Again,  he  says:  “I  have  already  said  that 
nature  cultivates  primarily  the  intellect,  while 
Scripture  cultivates  primarily  the  moral 

nature  of  man.  Now,  it  is  his  moral  nature 

202 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


which  is  the  distinctive  characteristic  of  man; 
this  it  is  which  is  the  very  essence  of  human¬ 
ity.  Without  this  we  might  regard  him  only 
as  an  intelligent  animal.’ ’ 

Again:  “Do  you  not  observe,  then,  that 
in  all  these  subjects — subjects  which  are  the 
most  closely  connected  with  our  highest  in¬ 
terests — the  perception  of  truth  depends  not 
so  much  on  the  vigor  and  clearness  of  the 
intellect  as  it  does  upon  the  purity  of  the 
heart  ? ’ ’ 

Concerning  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
he  says:  “By  far  the  grandest  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  this  chapter  is  that  which  makes  the 
creative  days  great  periods  of  time.  It  is  not 
only,  however,  the  grandest,  but  is  also  by 
far  the  most  accordant,  both  with  the  teach¬ 
ings  of  nature  and  the  teachings  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  therefore  the  most  rational.  That 
it  is  accordant  with  the  teachings  of  nature 
is  admitted  by  all ;  but  many  will  perhaps 
doubt  its  accordance  with  the  general  teach¬ 
ings  of  Scripture — many  regard  it  as  a  con¬ 
struction  forced  upon  us  by  nature.  I  can 
not  think  so.  For,  observe,  the  word  ‘day’  is 
often  used,  both  in  Scripture  and  in  common 
language,  to  mean  an  indefinite  period  of  time. 
Observe,  second,  that  in  the  poetry  of  the 
Scriptures  it  is  nearly  always  used  in  this 
indefinite  sense.  Observe,  third,  that  in 

203 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


prophecy  it  is  always  used  in  that  sense.  In 
other  words,  in  subjects  that  lie  within  the 
limits  of  our  human  experience,  the  word 
‘day’  is  used  in  Scripture  in  its  usual  significa¬ 
tion  of  a  period  of  twenty-four  hours;  but  in 
every  case  in  which  the  subject  is  one  which 
transcends  human  experience ,  it  is  used  as  an 
indefinite  period  of  time.” 

Also:  “The  order  of  creation  revealed  in 
the  Scripture  is  the  order  of  the  evolution  of 
the  material  universe  and  of  the  organic  king¬ 
dom  revealed  in  nature.  Is  this  genius?  If 
it  is  genius,  it  is  a  genius  that  has  anticipated 
the  latest  results  of  science.  ” 

In  the  “Origin  of  the  World,”  by  Sir 
William  Dawson,  of  McGill  University,  Can¬ 
ada,  one  of  the  highest  authorities  in  geology, 
the  author  of  many  books  and  a  recognized 
leader  in  the  world’s  thought,  he  defends 
the  Mosaic  account  of  creation,  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible  and  the  creation  of  man  as  set 
forth  in  Genesis.  He  says:  “Man  was  created, 
as  the  Hebrew  literally  reads,  the  shadow  and 
similitude  of  God — the  greatest  of  the  visible 
manifestations  of  Deity  in  the  lower  world,  the 
reflected  image  of  his  Maker,  and,  under  the 
supreme  Lawgiver,  the  delegated  ruler  of 
the  earth.” 

Again:  “Science  can  not  successfully  long 

isolate  itself  from  God.” 

204 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Concerning  geology  he  says:  “Geology  as 
a  science  is  at  present  in  a  peculiar  and  some¬ 
what  exceptional  state.  Under  the  influence 
of  a  few  men  of  commanding  genius  belonging 
to  the  generation  now  passing  away,  it  has 
made  so  gigantic  conquests  that  its  armies  have 
broken  up  into  bands  of  specialists,  little  bet¬ 
ter  than  scientific  banditti,  liable  to  be  beaten 
in  detail,  and  prone  to  commit  outrages  on 
common  sense  and  good  taste,  which  bring 
their  otherwise  good  cause  into  disrepute.  The 
leaders  of  these  bands  are,  many  of  them,  good 
soldiers,  but  few  of  them  fitted  to  be  general 
officers,  and  none  of  them  able  to  reunite  our 
scattered  detachments.  We  need  larger  minds, 
of  broader  culture  and  wider  sympathies,  to 
organize  and  rule  the  lands  which  we  have 
subdued  and  to  lead  on  to  further  conquests. 

“The  only  remedy  in  the  case  is  a  higher 
and  more  general  scientific  education ;  and 
yet  I  do  not  wonder  that  many  good  men 
object  to  this,  simply  because  of  the  difficulty 
of  finding  honest  and  competent  teachers, 
themselves  well  grounded  in  their  subjects,  and 
free  from  that  common  insanity  of  specialists 
and  self-educated  men  which  impels  them  to 
run  amuck  at  everything  that  does  not  depend 
on  their  own  methods  of  research.’  ’ 

The  above  remarks  with  regard  to  the 

shortcomings  of  the  specialist  are  timely. 

205 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


This  is  an  age  of  specialists.  In  biology  they 
are  still  slicing  incipient  chicks  and  dilating 
upon  the  wonders  of  gnats’  toenails,  hoping 
thereby  to  prognosticate  the  course  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.  The  ideas  of  many  of  them  are  as 
limited  as  the  drop  of  water  in  which  billions 
of  microbes  float.  It  would  be  as  possible  for 
one  of  these  microbes  to  comprehend  the 
course  of  events  as  it  would  be  for  one  of 
these  specialists,  who  has  no  general  view  of 
the  order  of  things.  I  certainly  do  not  belittle 
the  microscope,  but  I  do  belittle  the  biped 
who  makes  of  himself  nothing  but  a  microscope. 
A  human  telescope,  if  we  must  choose,  would 
be  better. 

It  is  evident  from  answers  to  my  question¬ 
naire  that  quite  a  number  of  those  in  chief 
places  eliminate  miracles  and  all  that  is  super¬ 
natural,  in  the  Christian  sense,  from  the  New 
Testament,  and  accept  only  the  ethical  part 
of  Christ’s  teaching.  This  is  a  rejection  of 
the  Bible  as  a  book  of  authority  in  religion. 

With  faith  thus  destroyed,  all  religious 
ordinances  and  worship  rest  upon  no  founda¬ 
tion  except  human  authority. 

Professor  Le  Conte  well  says:  “I  do  be¬ 
lieve  that  we  can  not  do  a  man  a  greater  and 
more  irreparable  injury  than  to  unsettle  in 
any  way  his  religious  faith.  Faith  is  the 
very  foundation  of  all  noble  activity.  ” 

206 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


Kant  says:  “There  is  a  limit  where  the 
intellect  fails  and  breaks  down,  and  this  limit 
is  where  the  questions  concerning  God  and 
freedom  and  immortality  arise.” 

Goethe  says:  “Epochs  of  faith  are  epochs 
of  fruitfulness ;  but  epochs  of  unbelief,  how¬ 
ever  glittering,  are  barren  of  all  permanent 
good.” 

Bacon  says:  “There  never  was  found,  in 
any  age  of  the  world,  either  philosopher  or 
sect  or  law  or  discipline  which  did  so  highly 
exalt  the  public  good  as  the  Christian  faith.” 

F.  W.  Robertson  says:  “To  believe  is  to 
be  strong.  Doubt  cramps  energy.  Belief  is 
power.  ’  ’ 

Darwin’s  son,  in  writing  of  his  father, 
says:  “There  is  natural  law,  physical  law,  and 
Mr.  Darwin  would  have  no  other.  .  .  .  Un¬ 
designed  variability  means  to  Mr.  Darwin  only 
accident  and  chance.  ...  To  Newton  there 
might  be  a  God  who  created  the  things  them¬ 
selves,  but  to  Darwin  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  was  a  need.” 

Professor  Conn  says:  “The  greatest 
strength  of  the  ‘law  of  natural  selection’  has 
been  a  substitute  of  ‘natural  law’  for  super¬ 
natural  intelligence.  ’  ’ 

Henry  F.  Osborn  says:  “Chance  is  the 
very  essence  of  the  original  Darwinian  selec¬ 
tion  hypothesis  of  evolution.” 

207 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


In  “The  Descent  of  Man”  (Vol.  II.,  p. 
378),  Mr.  Darwin  does  not  seem  to  agree  with 
the  above  view’s  when  he  says:  “The  birth  both 
of  the  species  and  of  the  individual  are  equal¬ 
ly  parts  of  that  grand  sequence  of  events 
which  our  minds  refuse  to  accept  as  the  re¬ 
sults  of  blind  chance.  The  understanding  re¬ 
volts  at  such  a  conclusion.” 

If  we  can  not  consider  the  events  “as  the 
results  of  blind  chance,”  at  wdiich  the  “under¬ 
standing  revolts,  ’  ’  wre  must  accept  the  only 
other  alternative  as  his  opinion,  which  is  the 
design  of  an  intelligent  creation.  Mr.  Dar¬ 
win’s  statement,  coming  at  the  conclusion  of 
his  long  labor  on  organic  evolution,  repre¬ 
sents  his  final  and  most  mature  opinion  as  to 
the  cause  of  creation. 

On  page  249  of  “The  Origin  of  Species,” 
he  writes :  “  I  see  no  good  reason  why  the  views 
given  in  this  volume  should  shock  the  re¬ 
ligious  feelings  of  any  one.”  This  language 
implies  that  he  did  not  by  his  writings  intend 
to  deny  the  existence  of  God  or  the  truth  of 
the  Christian  religion. 

He  speaks  about  “the  laws  impressed  on 
matter  by  the  Creator,”  which  as  “secondary 
causes”  produce  evolution.  He  said:  “It  is 
mere  rubbish  thinking  of  the  origin  of  life.” 
Also,  that  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  the 
simplest  mental  power.  He  did  not  place 

208 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


himself  with  those  who  rely  exclusively  on 
matter,  motion  and  force  as  the  final  cause 
of  evolution. 

Logically,  however,  if  secondary  causes 
alone — i.  e.,  matter,  motion  and  force — acting 
by  chance,  are  all  that  he  needed  to  account 
for  the  working  of  his  theory  from  the  high 
forms  with  which  he  began  up  to  man,  the 
same  process,  it  would  seem,  could  have  pro¬ 
duced  these  forms  from  the  beginning ;  and 
this,  as  claimed  by  many  evolutionists,  neces¬ 
sarily  involved  spontaneous  generation. 

A  second  class,  who  regard  themselves  as 
theistic  evolutionists,  accept  evolution  as  God’s 
only  method  of  working,  thus  eliminating  the 
supernatural  by  naturalism. 

As  I  have  stated,  this  method  destroys  the 
Bible  and  the  Christian  religion,  and  gives 
only  natural  religion. 

A  third  class  accept  both  the  natural  and 
the  supernatural  as  set  forth  in  the  Bible ; 
they  accept  both  evolution  of  species  and 
miracles.  This  I  take  to  be  the  attitude  gen¬ 
erally  of  those  who  claim  to  be  Christian 
evolutionists.  Evolution,  however,  in  the 
proper  sense  is  pure  naturalism,  founded  on 
“matter,  motion  and  force”  as  the  only  scien¬ 
tific  basis,  or,  if  God  is  admitted,  His  work  is 

confined  strictly  to  the  naturalistic  method. 

209 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


It  is  evident  that  the  great  question  is 
God  or  no  God  f  Or,  if  God  is,  is  He  confined 
to  naturalism f  Are  there  intelligence  and 
freewill  in  and  through  it  all  ?  Shall  a 
materialistic  philosophy  based  upon  intelli¬ 
gent  force,  acting  by  chance,  banish  from 
the  human  mind  and  heart  the  living  God,  the 
Father  of  all  ?  Shall  man  be  regarded  as 
simply  the  highest  brute?  Is  man  to  exist 
“without  God  and  without  hope  in  the  world,” 
entering  the  future  with  uncertain  tread,  or 
shall  he  face  it  with  unshaken  faith  as  to  the 
realities  beyond  and  with  a  hope  “anchored 
within  the  vale”? 

David  exclaimed:  “My  heart  and  my  flesh 
cry  out  for  the  living  God.” 

Bacon  said:  “They  that  deny  a  God, 
destroy  man’s  nobility;  for  clearly  man  is  of 
kin  to  the  beasts  by  his  body,  and  if  he  be  not 
of  kin  to  God  by  his  spirit,  he  is  a  base  and 
ignoble  creature.” 

“A  foe  to  God  was  never  a  true  friend  to 
man.” 

In  conclusion,  I  may  say  that  what  I  have 
written  is  aimed  especially  at  the  teaching  of 
a  godless  theory  under  the  name  “evolution,” 
and  at  those  views  of  evolution  that  eliminate 
the  supernatural  as  taught  in  the  Bible. 

It  is  said  that  a  recent  census  in  France 
gives  six  million  atheists  in  the  country.  A 

210 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


correct  census  would,  no  doubt,  give  to  Ger¬ 
many  and  some  other  European  countries  an 
equal  per  cent.  The  effects  of  godlessness  are 
manifesting  themselves  in  all  countries.  This 
is  partly  due  to  the  peculiar  conditions  grow¬ 
ing  out  of  the  World  War. 

Our  public-school  system  is  supposed  to 
conserve  the  interests  of  the  people,  but  these 
interests  can  not  best  be  advanced  by  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  a  godless  theory  of  the  universe. 

I  feel  sure  that  a  considerable  per  cent,  of 
professors’  chairs  in  many  of  our  leading 
universities  are  occupied  by  agnostics  and 
atheists.  They  are,  for  the  most  part,  quietly 
doing  their  deadly  work  with  those  who  are  to 
teach  the  present,  and,  through  their  influence, 
the  future,  generations. 

These  professors  are  protected  by  what  is 
called  “ academic  liberty,”  or  “academic  free¬ 
dom.”  They  sit,  as  it  were,  in  the  steel  vaults 
built  by  the  millions  of  dollars  of  great  uni¬ 
versities  and  blandly  smile  at  the  protests  that 
are  made  against  their  godless  teaching.  If 
they  condescend  to  notice  objections  at  all,  it 
is  to  say  that  their  teaching  is  misunderstood. 

At  the  same  time  they  “laugh  up  their 
sleeves,”  and  say  to  themselves,  “The  old  fools 
are  casting  their  eggs  against  stone  walls.” 

Is  it  true  that  the  public  has,  in  various 

ways,  enthroned  the  godless  to  teach  the  young 

211 


Atheism  in  Our  Universities 


and  assigned  them  godlike  power?  Has  the 
Christian  public  no  way  to  reach  and  dethrone 
the  atheists  who  sit  in  public  places  and  devi¬ 
talize  the  souls  of  men f  Can  majorities  reach 
and  dethrone  them?  Can  the  united  protests 
of  all  God-fearing  Christian  ministers  have  the 
desired  effect? 

Many  of  the  clergy  have  been  led  ignorantly 
to  accept  a  false  theory  of  evolution,  and  this 
quiets  their  apprehensions  so  that  they  may 
feel  that  all  is  well.  But  all  Christian  minis¬ 
ters  stand  for  God  and  against  atheism.  A 
united  clergy  might  cleanse  the  Augean  stable 
of  its  filth  of  atheism.  All  would  rejoice  if  it 
were  done.  But  we  are  told  that  each  clergy¬ 
man  must  devote  himself  to  looking  after  his 
own  flock. 

Is  it  not  time  for  Elijah  to  come  calling 
down  fire  from  heaven  and  bringing  his  sword 
to  slay? 

The  Christ  has  said:  “ Every  plant,  which 
my  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted,  shall 
be  rooted  up.” 


212 


Date  Due 


